^Jl.'o^. 

Stom  t^e  feifirart?  of 

(J)rofe66or  njJifPtctm  J^^nrg  (Bteen 

©equeaf^e^  %^  ^im  to 

t^e  feifimr^  of 

(prtncefon  C^eofogtcaf  ^emtndi 

BS    1199    .E8    J32    1882 
Jarrel,    W.    A.    1849-1927, 
Old  Testament   ethics 
vindicated 

^ 

OLD  TESTAMENT  ETHICS 


VINDISATED, 


BEING  AN 


Exposition  of  Old  Testament  Morals  ;  A  Comparison  of  Old  Tes- 
tament Morals  with  the  Morals  of  Heathen — so-called — 
**  Sacred  Books,"  Religions,  Philosophers,  and  Infi- 
del Writers;    and  a  Vindication  of  Old 
Testament  Morals  against  Infidelity. 


/ 
BY  REV.  W.  A.  JARREL, 

Author  of  "  Election,"  •'  Liberty  of  Conscience,"  etc.,  etc.,  etc. 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE  AUTHOR. 

1882. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  by  Rev.  W.  A.  JARREL,  in 
the  year  1882,  in  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


All  right  reserved. 


"What  then  is  unbelief? — 'Tis  an  exploit, 
A  strenuous  enterprise.     To  gain  it  man 
Must  burst  through  every  bar  of  common  sense, 
Of  common  shame — magnanimously  wrong! 

— Who  most  examine,  most  believe ; 

Parts,  like  half  sentences,  confound." — Young. 

**  If  to-morrow  I  perish  utterly  ....  I  shall  care  nothing  for 
the  generation  of  mankind.  I  shall  know  no  higher  law  than  passion. 
Moralitywill  vanish  y — Theodore  Packer,  an  infidel. 

" M7  TrZavacr^e ;  ^Oeipovalv  t/Otj  XPV^^'^  S^uiXiai  KCKal.'^  -  Be  not  led  as- 
tray;  wicked  communications  corrupt  good  morals." — I  Cor.  15:  23' 


INTRODUCTION 


The  subject  of  this  volume — Old  Testament  Ethics — in  the 
'  field  of  apologetics,  has  been  almost  wholly  ignored  or  neg- 
lected. 

Excepting  the  work  of  Prof.  Mozley,  which  has  been  pub- 
lished since  the  first  writing  of  this  volume,  there  is  no  work 
in  the  English  language  which  especially  treats  of  Old  Testa- 
ment Ethics.  Prof.  Mozley' s  work  covers  but  a  very  little  of 
the  subjects  of  this  volume.  While  Prof.  Mozley' s  work  is 
valuable  as  a  historical  work,  is  fraught  with  valuable  thoughts 
and  arguments,  its  treatment  of  the  subject  borders  too  much 
upon  the  rationalistic  ground  to  be  a  safe  book  for  the  uncrit- 
ical reader.  The  statement  of  Prof.  H.  B.  Smith,  in  his  late 
** Apologetics" — "One  thing  is  certain,  that  infidel  science 
will  route  everything  excepting  thorough-going  orthodoxy.  All 
the  flabby  theories,  and  the  molluscous  formations,  and  the  in- 
intermediate  purgatories  and  speculations  will  go  by  the  board. 
The  fight  will  be  between  a  stiff,  thorough -going  orthodoxy  and 
a  stiff,  thoroughing-going  infidelity" — is  as  applicable  to  the 
ethics  of  the  Old  Testament  as  to  any  other  part  of  the  battle- 
field. While,  in  the  study  of  Old  Testament  Ethics,  we  must  keep 
before  us  the  fact,  that  it  is  germinal  and  preparatory  to  New 
Testament  Ethics,  and,  therefore,  accommodated  to  its  age, 
like  the  New  is  accommodated  to  our  age,  we  must  firmly 
maintain,  from  first  to  last,  that  its  Ethics  are  as  pure  as  the 
New,  as  spotless  as  the  throne  of  God.  [See  Chapter  I.  for 
full  explanation  of  this.] 

On  the  canonical,  textual  and  literary  battle-field  of  the  Old 

(iii) 


IV  INTRODUCTION. 

Testament,  the  enemy's  heavy  guns  have  been  silenced.  The 
school  of  Kuenen,  Oort,  Colenso,  Robertson  Smith  &  Co.,  is 
but  the  dying  echo  of  the  heavy  German  infidel  guns  of  the 
generation  just  passed. 

Upon  the  batde-field  of  physical  science  and  religion  the 
past  ten  years  have  witnessed  results  equally  satisfactory  to 
Christians.  Recent  letters  to  Dr.  Moss — President  of  Indiana 
State  University — from  Profs.  J.  W.  Dawson,  Peter  G.  Tait, 
Daniel  Kirkwood,  Asa  Gray,  Benjamin  Pierce,  Joseph  Le- 
conte,  James  D.  Dana,  C.  A.  Young,  men  well  known  as 
world-wide  leaders  in  science,  all  prove,  in  the  language  of 
Prof.  Dana,  it  is  not  true  ''that  the  majority  of  the  recognized 
authorities  in  physical  science  are  hostile  to  Christianity.  .  .  . 
The  whirlwind  is  passing;  and  it  is  now  recognized  by  the  best 
authorities  that  science  has  no  basis  of  facts  for  explaining  the 
origin  of  life  from  dead  matter ;  and  that  not  a  step  has  yet 
been  taken  to  fill  up  the  interval  between  the  higher  brute 
and  the  lower  grade  of  existing  man.  We  are  now  reaping 
the  benefits  of  the  recent  strife,  by  deriving  therefrom  clear 
views  of  the  limits  of  scientific  inquiry,  and  of  the  interval 
between  the  material  and  spiritual.  These  points  are  appre- 
ciated ;  faith  will  regain  all  she  may  seem  to  have  lost,  and  go 
forward  to  make  new  conquests." 

Science,  a  scientific  journal,  lately  comes  out  and  says  of 
Herbert  Spencer's  foolishness:  "His  Atheistical -dogmas  are 
neither  founded  on  scientific  investigations,  nor  in  harmony 
with  scientific  discoveries.  ...  We  ask  that  science  shall 
no  longer  bear  the  odium  of  Atheism." 

In  the  young  sciences— if  they  may  yet  be  termed  sciences 
—of  Comparative  Philosophy  and  Comparative  Religion,  the 
investigations  by  such  names  as  Max  Muller,  Legge,  Bopp, 
Wilson,  Weber,  etc. ,  and  our  own  Whitney,  have  but  added 


INTRODUCTION.  V 

to  the  same  glorious  result.  And,  now,  from  the  grave  of 
thousands  of  years,  the  buried  witnesses  of  Egypt,  of  the 
Holy  Land,  as  if  summoned  by  Jehovah's  trumpet,  are  arising 
to  rebuke  the  scoffer  and  strengthen  ''the  weak  in  the  faith." 
As  "the  stars  in  their  courses  fought  against  Sisera,"  so  every 
science,  every  real  discovery,  is  joined  with  every  other  one 
in  war  against  infidelity.  So  much  is  this  so,  that  a  leading 
American  infidel,  who,  several  years  ago,  proposed  the  erec- 
tion, in  Boston,  of  an  altar  "to  the  Unknown  God,"  comes 
home,  from  a  two  years'  tour  in  Germany — I  refer  to  O.  B. 
Frothingham — and  says,  "It  is  better  to  stop  denying,  and 
wait  for  more  light." 

This  volume  is  not  intended  to  be  an  exhaustive  treatment 
of  Old  Testament  Ethics.  Yet  it  is  believed  that  it  will  give 
such  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  subject,  that  the  reader  who 
masters  it  will  have  a  more  than  common  knowledge  of  Old 
Testament  Ethics.  The  work  is  designed  to  be  all  tha*-  is 
necessary  to  enable  even  the  unlearned,  in  his  own  mind,  to 
reply  to  such  ethical  objections  to  the  Old  Testament  as  are 
presented  by  the  ablest  infidels.  At  the  same  time,  the  work 
can  but  give  a  clearer  and  more  appreciative  view  of  the  New 
Testament. 

Should  Providence  direct,  the  writer  may,  sometime,  pre- 
pare a  book  intended  as  only  an  exposition  of  Old  Testament 
Ethics. 

Should  this  volume  meet  with  a  general  reception,  the 
author  may  follow  it  with  a  volume,  of  the  same  size,  now  in 
rough  MS.,  upon  the  "Comparative  Fruits  of  Christianity  and 
Infidelity." 

Praying  that  this  humble  offering  may  be  blessed  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  Christian  hearts  and  the  opening  of  the  eyes  of 
unbelievers,  I  am  yours,  W.  A.  Jarrel. 

July,  1882. 


The  DEDiOATiof^, 


To  the  memory  of  his  motJier,  who  lately  left  hiniy  to 
*' sleep  in  Jesus^''  to  his  children^  this  volimie  is  es- 
pecially dedicated  by  the  author^  their  beloved  father^ 
who  woidd  rather  follow  them  to  their  graves  than  see 
them  infidels — with  the  prayer  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
early  bring  them  to  the   Savior^  on   whose  bosom   their 

father  has  long  rested  from  unbelief 

W.  A.  J. 


Old  Testiheit  Ethics  Yitoicited. 


CHAPTER  I. 

OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   GERMINAL  AND  PREPARATIVE  TO  NEW 
TESTAMENT  ETHICS. 

The  word  ethics  is  derived  from  the  Greek  word,  rjdog — 
eefkos.  The  word,  in  the  New  Testament,  occurs  in  only  i 
Cor.  XV.  33.  In  lieu  of  "manners,"  it  should  be  there  ren- 
dered morals.  The  word,  in  the  Latin,  for  the  same  idea,  is 
moralis,  whence  is  the  English,  morals.  Ethics  and  morals, 
therefore,  are  words  for  the  same  thing.  In  this  book  they 
are  used  as  synonymous.  To  stop  a  moment  and  notice  the 
distinction  between  morals  and  manners  may  be  well.  The 
word  manners  is  derived  from  the  Latin  word,  fnanarius,  signi- 
fying art,  style,  varymg  modes  of  action.  [See  Andrews' 
Lat.  Lex,,  under  manus.]  ''Manners  respect  the  minor  forms 
of  acting  with  others  and  toward  others ;  morals  include  the 
important  duties  of  life.  .  .  .  By  an  attention  to  good 
manners^  we  render  ourselves  good  companions;  by  an  ob- 
servance of  good  morals^  we  become  good  members  of  society. 
.  .  .  The  manners  of  a  child  are  of  more  or  less  import- 
ance, according  to  his  station  in  life ;  his  morals  can  not  be 
attended  to  too  early,  let  his  station  be  what  it  may.  'In  the 
present  and  corrupted  state  of  human  7nanners,  always  to  as- 

(7) 


8  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

sent  and  comply,  is  the  very  worst  maxim  we  can  adopt.  It 
is  impossible  to  support  the  purity  and  dignity  of  Christian 
morals  without  opposing  the  world  on  various  occasions.'" — 
Cmhbe's  Eng.  Syno?iy??is.  MatiJiers  are  forms,  standards  of 
action,  relate  to  only  man,  are  made  by  society,  subject  to 
variation  and  change,  according  to  place,  time  and  age,  and 
may  often  be  disregarded,  and,  in  many  cases,  should  be 
disregarded ;  morals  relate  to  God  and  man,  are  the  dictates 
of  right,  of  God — of  the  moral  law — and  must  be  the  same 
for  all  people,  for  all  times  and  ages,  and  can  never  be  dis- 
obeyed or  disregarded  without  doing  violence  to  our  moral 
nature,  and  incurring  the  guilt  and  the  penalty  due  such  trans- 
gression. "Ethics  includes  chiefly  the  rectitude  by  which 
man  is  put  in  relation,  not  only  with  his  fellows,  but  primarily 
with  God." — Person  of  Christ,  by  Dorner^  Vol.  /.,  Biv.  \,  p. 
lo.  See,  especially,  the  third  chapter  of  this  book;  also, 
Harless'  Sys.  Chr.  Eth.,  pp.  4-7.  The  Bible  is  essentially  a 
book  of  Ethics. 

"Old  Testament  moraHty  has  essentially  a  preparatory 
character — refers  forward  to  a  higher,  and  as  yet  to  be  ac- 
quired, morality." — Wuttkes'  Eth.,  Vol.  /.,  p.  165.  That 
Wuttkes'  words,  quoted,  express  the  position  of  representative 
Christian  scholars,  of  all  ages,  is  certain  to  all  who  are  ac- 
quainted with  biblical  literature.  On  this,  see  Walker's  Phil. 
Plan  Salvation,  etc.,  etc.  Please  here  read,  carefully,  the 
ninth  and  the  tenth  chapters  of  Hebrews.  In  these  chapters 
the  apostle  forcibly  teaches  that  the  New  Testament  is  the 
Old,  developed;  that  "the  law;"  /.  e.,  the  Old  Testament, 
"having  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come;"  /.  e.,  of  the  New 
Testament.  Inasmuch  as  the  Old  is  the  germ  of  the  New, 
the  mission  of  Jesus  was  not  to  destroy,  but  to  develop  the 
Old.  He,  therefore,  says:  "I  came  not  to  destroy  the  law 
or  the  prophets,     .     .     .     but  to  fulfill. " — Matt.  v.  17.     The 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  9 

Greek,  here  rendered  ''fulfill" — nXrjQCjaal — -pleerosai — ''means 
to  fill,  to  make  full,  to  fill  up." — Liddell  and  Scotfs,  Robinson! s 
Greenfield! s^  Bagsters  Lexicofts.  It  means  to  make  full,  with 
the  idea  of  development  or  ''evolution."  The  reader  please 
turn  to  Matt.  xiii.  48;  xxiii.  32;  Luke  ii.  40;  iii.  5;  ix.  31; 
John  xii.  3;  xv.  11,  25;  xvi.  24;  Acts  ii.  2,  28;  v.  3,  28;  Rom. 
i.  29;  xiii.  8;  Gal.  v.  14;  Col.  iv.  12;  Rev.  iii.  2.  In  these 
Scriptures  the  word  will  be  found  rendered  by  such  renderings 
as,  "to  make  full,"  "fill  up,"  "complete."  In  the  eighty- 
eight  occurrences  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament  is  the 
idea  of  development. 

By  his  expiatory  and  teaching  life  and  death,  our  blessed 
Savior  fulfilled  "the  Law  and  the  Prophets" — the  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  his  teaching  he  developed  the  moral  idea  of  the 
Old  to  what  we  find  in  the  New.  Commenting  on  his  words 
just  quoted,  Stier  says:  "My  coming  is  throughout  and  en- 
tirely to  conserve,  to  expand,  and  to  fulfill  all  the  rudiments 
and  tendencies  toward  the  kingdom  of  God  in  humanity." — 
Words  0/ Jesus,  Vol.  I.,  p.  136.  Meyer,  a  "Rationalist,"  says 
this  fulfillment  of  the  Old  "is  the  perfect  development  of  the 
real  essence  of  its  precepts."  So  say  the  "Rationalists," 
Ewald,  De  Wette;  so  Olshausen,  evangelical,  et  at.  "And 
not  only  in  this  expression,  but  everywhere  in  the  gospel,  the 
Savior  had  no  intention  to  teach  anything  entirely  new,  any- 
thing for  which  some  point  of  contact  might  not  be  found  in 
the  Old  Testament,  and  for  which  the  Old  Testament  had  not 
prepared  the  way.  It  is  not  with  rabbinical  hair-splittings, 
but  with  simple  depth  of  insight,  that  he  points  out  in  the 
Old  Testament  sayings  and  facts,  truths  which  seem  entirely 
to  transcend  the  stage  of  religious  development  which  the  Old 
Testament  had  reached.  .  .  .  We  must  regard  the  TrXrjgovv 
— pleeroun — as  applying  not  only  to  the  teaching  of  Christ,  but 
to  the  whole  of  his  ministry  in  doing  and  in  suffering." — 


lO  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

Tholuck's  Ser.  on  Moimt,  pp.  128,  129.  The  patriarchs  had 
very  imperfect  and  some  erroneous  ideas  of  spiritual  things.  By- 
mingling  with  the  Egyptians  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
(the  majority  of  modern  critics  ma^intain  that  the  sojourn  in 
Egypt  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years ;  of  this  number  are 
Delitzsch,  Hengstenberg,  Jahn,  Kalisch,  Keil,  Eange,  Ranke, 
Winer,  Tuch,  Reineke,  Rosenmuller,  Knobel,  Havernick, 
Hofman,  Gesenius,  Ewald,  Kurtz,  Tiele,  ei  al ;  several  of 
these  are  skeptics;  and  Paul,  in  Gal.  iii.  17,  probably  stated 
only  a  practical  statement,  or  as  Lange  has  it,  he  may  have 
regarded  the  death  of  Jacob  as  "the  closing  of  the  date  of 
promise." — Gen.  xv.  13  ;  Exod.  xii.  40. — The  Pent  Vindicated^ 
by  Green,  p.  142),  their  children  had  fallen  far  below  what 
they  were.  So  that,  when  God  took  them  by  the  hand  to  lead 
them  out  of  Egypt,  they  were  a  morally  debased  people,  sus- 
ceptible to  moral  teaching  in  only  a  rudimental,  imperfect 
form.  '*God  can  no  more  force  an  immediate  moral  enlight- 
enment upon  an  existing  age,  and  antedate  a  high  moral 
standard  by  two  thousand  years,  than  he  can  instantaneously 
impart  a  particular  character  to  an  individual.  He  has  en- 
dowed man  with  intellectual  faculties  of  a  certain  kind,  which 
move  in  a  certain  way,  and  with  a  gradual  progressive  motion 
requiring  time.  .  .  .  The  natural  motion  of  the  human 
understanding  is  by  steps  and  stages ;  one  after  another  it  is 
weary,  sinks  back  exhausted,  and  can  not  go  farther  just  then, 
but  rests,  and  there  is  a  pause  in  the  progress  until  another 
impulse  comes ;  and  thus  the  work  is  accomplished  gradually, 
and  some  large  and  complete  truth  is  at  last  arrived  at.  .  .  . 
A  revelation  is  accepted  readily  when  it  concurs  with  men's 
wishes,  but  the  understanding,  when  separated  from  the  inclina- 
tion, stops  short  and  refuses  to  exert  itself.  .  .  .  This  instan- 
taneous enlightenment  of  mankind  by  revelation  is  a  wild 
notion." — Mozley's  Ruling  Ideas  in  Early  Ages,  pp.  244-246. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  II 

*The  Jewish  dispensation  .  .  .  was  both  prospective  and 
present  in  its  design ;  ...  it  worked  for  a  future  end 
while  it  provided  also  for  the  existing  wants  of  man." — Ide77i, 
p.  250.  (While  Mr.  Mozley  carries  this  position  to  a  fatal 
extent,  his  work  is  a  valuable  one,  if  read  with  a  critical  eye.) 
The  Bible  reader  will  have  the  idea  of  this  necessity  of  a  pro- 
gressive revelation  impressed  upon  his  mind,  by  calling  to  mind 
the  slowness  and  the  backslidings  of  Israel  through  the  wilder- 
ness and  through  their  whole  history  to  the  new  dispensation. 
Prof.  Rufus  P.  Stebbins,  D.  D.,  an  eminent,  critical  scholar, 
who  can  not  be  well  accused  of  ''orthodoxy,"  remarks: 
*'The  people  were  not  able  to  understand  or  appreciate  but  a 
a  small  part  of  them  at  first,  and  some  portions  of  them  were 
very  probably  found  impracticable  or  so  burdensome  as  to 
compel  neglect." — A  Study  of  the  Pentateuch^  p.  220.  If  such 
was  their  slowness  and  stubbornness  against  revelation  in  its 
imperfect,  rudimental  form,  a  more  developed  one  could  have 
effected  only  a  failure,  disastrous  to  the  whole  world. 

To  prepare  them  to  receive  the  New,  there  were  given 
them  typical  atonement,  typical  penalties,  typical  priests,  typi- 
cal cleansings,  typical  salvation — a  dispensation  of  object 
lessons.  To  regulate  their  moral  life,  a  moral  law  was  given, 
free  from  anything  of  an  immoral  nature,  but  so  accommo- 
dated to  their  understanding,  feelings  and  customs  as  to  reg- 
ulate them,  inculcating,  at  the  same  time,  better  things, 
preparing  them  for  revelation  ''fulfilled."  "The  world  was 
treated  for  a  period  as  a  child  that  must  be  taught  great  prin- 
ciples and  prepared  for  events  of  infinite  magnitude  and 
eternal  interests,  by  the  help  of  familiar  and  sensible  objects, 
which  lay  fully  open  to  their  view,  and  came  within  the  grasp 
of  their  comprehension.  But  now  we  have  to  deal  with  the 
things  themselves." — Typology  of  Scrip,  by  Fairhairn,  Vol.  /., 
/.  158.     To  point  out  some  illustrations  of  things  dimly  re- 


12  OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

vealed :  i.  Some  deny  that  the  Old  Testament  teaches  the 
doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punishments,  yet  it  is  there ; 
2,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  though  in  the  Old,  is  not  so 
clearly  taught  as  in  the  New;  3,  the  tripartite  nature  of  man, 
though  in  the  Old,  is  not  so  clearly  expressed  as  in  the  New; 
4,  demonology  is  not  so  clearly  taught  in  the  Old  as  in  the 
New;  5,  the  second  coming  of  Christ  is  not  taught  so  clearly 
in  the  Old  as  in  the  New ;  6,  the  question  of  divorce  is  not 
so  clearly  set  forth  in  the  Old  as  in  the  New. 

Even  the  latter  part  of  the  New  Testament  is,  in  some 
measure,  a  development  of  its  first  part.  i.  In  the  gospels 
no  clear  distinction  is  made  between  the  Txveviia — -pneuma — and 
the  'ipvx^—psukee — the  spirit  and  the  soul.  But  in  i  Thess.  v. 
23;  Heb.  iv.  12 — which  compare  with  Matt.  x.  28,  39;  xi. 
29 ;  xvi.  26,  where  no  distinction  is  mentioned — a  distinction  is 
forcibly  made.  2.  The  commission  was  first  confined  to  only 
the  Jews. — Matt.  x.  5.  3.  This  commission  was  finally  ex- 
tended to  the  whole  world. — Matt,  xxviii.  19.  4.  In  the 
first  period  of  the  New,  the  Spirit  was  given  in  a  limited 
measure ;  but,  finally,  much  more  fully.  This  explains  such 
words  as  are  found  in  John  xiv.  25,  26;  vii.  39,  which  a  few 
have  supposed  to  teach  that  there  was  no  Spirit  in  men  before 
the  time  therein  promised — supposed  that,  in  the  face  of  such 
as  Matt.  iii.  16;  John  iii.  34;  iv.  23  ;  vi.  62, ;  Ps.  li.  12;  cvi. 
33,  ^/  al.  The  Spirit  was  not  then  given  in  such  full  measure 
as  at  this  promised  time.  5.  There  are  at  least  three  periods 
of  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  first  is,  when  it  was  set  up ;  the  second,  at  the  larger  gift 
of  the  Spirit  on  Pentecost ;  the  third,  when  Jesus  comes  in 
his  second  coming.  These  periods  are  such  that  each  suc- 
ceeding one  is  spoken  of  as  though  wholly  a  new  kingdom. 
Compare  Matt.  iii.  i;  xi.  12;  xxiii.  18;  xxi.  31;  xii.  28; 
Luke  xvi.  16;  xi.  20;  vi.  20,  where  it  exists,  with  Mark  i\t 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 3 

i;  XV.  43;  Luke  ix.  27,  where,  in  promising  a  development 
of  this  same  kingdom,  it,  at  first,  would  seem  to  be  wholly  a 
different  kingdom;  and,  farther,  compare  a  third  develop- 
ment of  this  same  kingdom — i  Cor.  xv.  50;  Rev.  xii.  9-1 1; 
2  Tim.  iv.  I.  6.  Everywhere  in  the  Bible  our  present  state 
is  recognized  as  imperfect,  while  with  a  pure  revelation,  only 
an  imperfectly  developed  one.  As  revelation,  under  the  Old 
Dispensation,  met  with  such  difficulty  in  leading,  developing 
the  people  that  they  never  Hved  fully  up  to  its  teaching,  so  it 
is  with  revelation  under  the  New.  The  best  Christians  fall 
below  the  high  standard  of  both  dispensations. 

The  New  Testament  so  much  accommodates  the  moral  law 
to  our  condition,  that  many  evils,  imperfections, are  now  borne 
with  that  in  the  final  state  v/ill  not  be  known.  ''Him  that  is 
weak  in  the  faith  receive  ye."— Rom.  xiv.  i.  Some  of  the 
Corinthian  Church  had  become  drunken  at  so  holy  a  place  as 
the  Lord's  Supper;  but  Paul  tenderly  endeavored  to  reclaim 
them. — I  Cor.  xi.  21.  An  incestuous  man's  membership 
rather  "puffed  up"  than  humbled  this  church;  yet  Paul  ten- 
derly led  them  to  do  better. — i  Cor.  v.  1-13.  Such  evils 
borne  with,  then,  in  the  churches,  many  now  borne  with  in 
the  best  men,  in  the  best  churches,  will  not  be  known  in  the 
finally  developed  Dispensation. — Rev.  xxii.  3,  4;  xxi.  1-5. 
To  every  dispensation  of  God,  on  this  sinful  earth,  are  the 
words  apphcable  :  "I  could  not  speak  unto  you  as  unto  spir- 
itual; "/.^.,  perfect,  "but  as  unto  carnal, as  unto  babes  in  Christ. 
I  have  fed  you  with  milk,  and  not  with  meat :  for  hitherto  ye 
were  not  able  to  bear  it,  neither  yet  now  are  ye  able." — i 
Cor.  iii.  i,  2.  "I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but 
ye  can  not  bear  them  now." — John  xvi.  12.  'T  have  many 
things  to  say,  and  hard  to  be  uttered,  seeing  ye  are  dull  of 
hearing." — Heb.  v.  11.  We  are  but  a  step  above  those  of 
the  Old  Dispensation.     We  are  walking  only  a  little ;  we  are 


14  OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

but  out  of  our  "a,  b,  cs"  into  our  ''abs."  Perfect  life,  dis- 
pensation adapted  to  only  a  perfect  life  we  have  not,  could 
not  bear.  The  glory  of  the  "better  land"  but  faintly  seen; 
but  clusters  of  its  grapes  brought  across  to  us.  The  things 
which  Paul  saw  and  heard,  when  ''caught  up  to  the  paradise 
of  God,"  he  was  not  permitted  to  utter,  doubtless  because 
we  are  not  yet  prepared  to  hear  them. — 2  Cor.  xii.  4.  '■'■Now 
are  we  the  sons  of  God,  and  it  doth  not  yet  appear  what  we 
shall  be :  but  we  know  that  when  he  shall  appear  we  shall  be 
like  him." — i  John  iii.  2.  "Eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear 
heard,  neither  have  entered  into  the  heart  of  man,  the  things 
which  God  hath  prepared  for  them  that  love  him. " — i  Cor.  ii. 
c^^io.  And,  though  "revealed"  (next  verse),  they  are  revealed 
but  imperfectly. 

This  subject  is  a  fascinating  one,  and  can  be  here  but  suffi- 
ciently touched  upon  to  enable  the  reader  to  see  the  wisdom 
of  God's  plan  in  making  his  dispensations  but  adapted  to  our 
imperfect  condition.  As  the  old  creation  was  progressive,  so 
is  the  new — redemption — progressive.  Surely  the  skeptic, 
who  has  so  worshiped  evolution  in  its  very  extreme  form, 
ought  to  appreciate  the  truth  of  this  argument.  Whoever 
objected  to  the  New  Testament  because  but  an  imperfect  rev- 
elation adapted  to  our  imperfect  state  ?  Whoever  objected  to 
the  material  creation  because  progressive  in  its  work — from  the 
lower  to  the  higher?  Yet  there  would  be  as  much  wisdom  in 
either  of  these  objections  as  there  is  in  the  objection  to  the  im- 
perfection of  the  Old  Testament.  Why  not  object  to  these,  to 
human,  to  parental  government,  to  every  progressive  work, 
whether  human  or  divine,  because  not  instantaneously  Com- 
pleted, and,  therefore,  for  the  time,  imperfect?  Let  us,  then, 
remember  that  the  Old  Testament  is  only  an  imperfect  dispen- 
sation— an  imperfect  revelation — a  little  children's  school.  Yet, 
let  us  remember,  it  can  not  contain  anything  unrighteous  in  its 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  1 5 

nature  or  tendency.  Like  a  government  bearing  with  its  citi- 
zens, parents  bearing  with  their  children,  the  New  Testament 
bearing  with  its  learners — all  bearing,  educating— the  Old  Test- 
ament may  seem  to  sanction,  approve,  etc.,  unrighteousness; 
but  it  is  only  so  in  appearance.  Of  all  wise  governments,  in 
their  infancy,  it  may  be  written:  ''For  the  law  having  a 
shadow  of  good  things  to  come"  can  never  be  perfect. — Heb. 
X.  I.  But  let  it  be  emphasized,  that  neither  the  Old  nor  the  New 
Testa??ient,  because  but  imperfectly  develofed  morality  and  truth,  is 
any  the  less  pure  in  nature  and  tendency.  So  far  as  developed, 
both  dispensations  are  as  pure  in  nature  and  tendency  as  the 
spotless  nature  of  their  glorious  Author.  I  trust  that  the  dif- 
ference between  an  imperfectly  developed  law  and  a  law  of 
imperfect  morality  is  now  made  sufficiently  clear. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Old  is  but  the  New  in  germ,  Jesus  says, 
* 'Verily  I  say  unto  you.  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot 
or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law" — /*.  e.,  the 
Old  Testament— "till  all  be- fulfilled."— Matt.  v.  i8.  With 
exclusive  reference  to  the  Old  Testament,  Paul  says,  "All 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for 
doctrme,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  right- 
eousness: that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly 
furnished  unto  all  good  works." — 2  Tim.  iii.  16,  17.  Christ 
and  his  apostles  quoted,  preached  from  the  Old  as  infallibly 
pure.  Being  the  seed  of  the  New,  as  the  fruit  is  of  the  nature 
of  the  seed,  the  Old  could  not  be  otherwise  than  pure.  The 
ablest  Rationalist  critics  have  seen  the  oneness  of  both  Testa- 
ments. In  his  Characleristik  des  Hebraismus,  DeWette  re- 
marks: "Christianity  sprang  out  of  Judaism.  Long  before 
Christ  appeared,  the  world  was  prepared  for  his  appearance; 
the  entire  Old  Testament  is  a  great  prophecy,  a  great  type  of 
him  who  was  to  come,  and  has  come.  Who  can  deny  that 
the  holy  seers  of  the  Old  Testament  saw  in  spirit  the  advent 


1 6  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

of  Christ  long  before  he  came,  and  in  prophetic  anticipations, 
sometimes  more,  sometimes  less  clear,  described  the  new  doc- 
trine? The  typological  comparison,  also,  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment with  the  New,  was  by  no  means  a  mere  play  of  fancy; 
nor  can  it  be. regarded  as  altogether  the  result  of  accident, 
that  the  evangelical  history,  in  the  most  important  particulars, 
runs  parallel  with  the  Mosaic.  Christianity  lay  in  Judaism  as 
leaves  and  fruits  do  in  the  seed,  though,  certainly,  it  needed 
the  divine  Sun  to  bring  it  forth." — Quoted  in  Fairbaini' s 
Typology,  Vol.  /.,  /.  34,  and,  by  Fairbairn,  from  Bahfs  Symb., 
Vol.  I.,  p.  16.  This*  statement,  coming  from  one  of  such 
scholarship,  called  the  ' 'Universal  Doubter,"  and  in  his  old 
age  at  that,  is  of  vast  significance. 


OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  1 7 


CHAPTER  II. 

HOW  TO   INTERPRET   OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS. 

To  understand  the  words  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  follow- 
ing are  essential : 

1.  Willingness  to  see  it  as  it  is. 

2.  If  inclined  to  prejudice,  lightness,  harshness  of  spirit, 
struggle  for  freedom  from  such  spirit.  As  Max  Muller  remarks 
of  arguments  of  this  spirit:  "Such  arguments  may  tell  in 
party  warfare,  though  even  there  they  have  provoked  fearful 

retaliation People  who  judge   of  religions   in 

that  spirit  will  never  understand  their  real  purport,  will  never 
reach  their  sacred  springs." — Science  of  Religion,  p.  115. 

3.  Remember  that  where  we  may  find  things  that  do  not, 
at  first,  seem  right,  a  little  investigation  may  place  them  in  a 
very  different  light. 

4.  Do  not  assume  to  ourselves  infallibility  of  judgment; 
possibly,  where  we  condemn,  the  Old  Testament  may  be 
right. 

5.  Remember  the  truth,  known  to  heathen  philosophers, 
that  correct  moral  judgment  requires  freedom  from  sin. 

6.  Never  condemn  until  after  long,  honest,  patient  inves- 
tigation. If  Huxley  and  Darwin  spend  years  trying  to  find 
a  connecting  link  between  man  and  the  monkey,  surely  we 
ought  to  be  willing  to  spend  time  and  labor  to  fairly  investi- 
gate a  book  of  such  claims,  and  of  such  momentous  interests 
and  results,  if  true,  as  the  Old  Testament. 


iS  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

7.  Remember  the  rule,  that  when  there  is  room  for  doubt, 
charity  requires  that  the  benefit  of  that  doubt  be  given  to 
the  tried.  If  a  reasonable  explanation  can  be  found,  charity 
and  justice  require  that  you  adopt  it  until  the  contrary  can  be 
clearly  made  out. 

8.  Remember  the  age  in  which  the  Old  Testament  was 
given;  try  to  throw  yourself  into  sympathy  with  that  age. 

9.  Remember  that  the  antiquities  of  Bible  times  are  essen- 
tial to  explain  many  of  their  doings. 

10.  Remember  that  in  so  old  a  book  as  the  Bible,  the  rec- 
ords of  what  are  necessary  to  place  some  things  in  a  very 
different  light  may  be  lost  or  unknown.  If  you  can  not  at 
once  clear  up  the  difficulties,  take  the  course  of  O.  B.  Froth- 
ingham,  who,  after  ridiculing  the  Bible  for  years,  now  says: 
''Looking  back  over  the  last  twenty  years,  I,  who.have  stood 
aloof  from  all  revealed  religion  during  that  time,  can  not  but 
acknowledge  that  its- opponents  have  made  no  headway  what- 
ever. To  my  friends  and  followers,  who  may  feel  grieved  at 
such  an  admission  on  my  part,  I  would  say  that  I  am  no  more 
a  believer  in  revealed  religion  to-day  than  I  was  ten  years 
ago.  But  I  have  doubts  which  I  had  not  then.  The  creeds 
of  to-day  do  not  seem  in  my  eyes  to  be  so  utterly  groundless 
as  they  were  then ;  and  while  I  believe  that  the  next  hundred 
years  will  see  great  changes  in  them,  I  do  not  *think  they  are 
destined  to  disappear.  To  sum  up  the  whole  matter,  the 
work  which  I  have  been  doing  appears  to  lead  to  nothing,  and 
may  have  been  grounded  upon  mistaken  premises.  Therefore,  it 
is  better  to  stop.  But  I  do  not  wish  to  give  the  impression  that 
I  recant  anything.  I  simply  stop  denying,  and  wait  for  more 
light." 

11.  Remember  that  in  science,  everywhere,  there  are  some 
inexplicable  difficulties,  or  difficulties  that  only  a  coming  age 
may  explain. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  ETHICS  VINDICATED.  19 

*'It  should  be  understood  at  the  outset,  that  no  one  claims 
that  the  system  of  Christianity  is  free  from  difficulties,  which 
may  here  and  there  be  of  a  perplexing  character.  This  is  no 
more  than  is  admitted  by  everybody,  except  narrow  partisans, 
in  the  case  of  every  science.  The  same  thing  is  true,  I  be- 
lieve, in  the  law  of  gravitation. 

* 'There  are  mysteries  which  are  not  cleared  up,  which  Rev- 
elation does  not  pretend  to  clear  up;  some,  it  is  likely,  that 
human  intelligence,  at  its  present  grade  of  development,  is 
incapable  of  explaining.  .  .  .  The  question  respecting 
any  creed  proposed  for  belief,  whether  in  religion,  philosophy 
or  science,  is  whether  the  reasons  for  it  are  stronger  than  the 
reasons  against  it.  Christianity  asks  for  itself  no  more  than 
is  conceded  in  regard  to  every  other  system  and  theory,  and 
in  regard  to  events  which  generally  do  not  fall  under  the  im- 
mediate notice  of  the  senses;  though  even«  here*  time  and 
space,  sense,  perception,  and  the  reality  of  an  external  world, 
are  not  free  from  the  most  perplexing  difficulties." — Prof.  G. 
P.  Fisher,  in  North  American  Review,  February,  1882. 

12.  Remember  that  the  design  of  any  law  has  much  to  do 
with  its  interpretation.  For  example,  if  the  Old  Testament 
had  been  given  to  clear  up  every  difficulty,  satisfy  every  curi- 
osity, and  fully  reveal  all  spiritual  things,  it  would  have  been 
a  very  different  book  from  what  it  is. 

13.  Compare  the  statements  of  the  Old  Testament  upon 
any  point  with  all  its  statements  which  have  any  bearing  upon 
the  same  point. 

14.  Let  the  New  Testament  interpret  the  Old.  Being  the 
Old  developed,  the  New  must  be  upon  it  an  essential  com- 
mentary. 

15.  Endeavor  to  pray  to  its  Author  for  the  Spirit  to  prepare 
your  mind  to  understand  it. 

16.  Remember  that  the  record  of  a  matter  in  the  Bible  is 


20  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

no  evidence  of  its  being  right.  The  temptation  of  Jesus,  the 
denial  by  Peter,  speaking  unadvisedly  by  Moses,  incest  of  the 
Lot  family,  sins  of  David,  etc. ,  are  examples  recorded  to  warn, 
rebuke  sin,  and  show  that  the  best  men  may  fall. 

17.  Remember  that  commendatory  notices  of  good  men 
are  not  to  be  taken  as  commendatory  of  their  faults  and  falls. 

18.  Often,  when  men  persistently  resist  God's  will,  he 
throws  influences  around  them  to  blind  and  harden  them 
in  their  course  so  as  to  run  themselves  into  destruction.  In 
such  cases,  (i)  their  own  wickedness  is  the  reason  for  God 
placing  them  under  such  influences;  (2)  God  places  them 
under  these  influences  to  judicially  punish  them ;  (3)  by  their 
resistance  they  harden  their  own  hearts ;  (4)  because  of  their 
hardening  their  own  hearts,  God,  by  these  influences,  hardens 
them,  too,  in  order  to  punish  them.  Thus,  Pharaoh  persist- 
ently resisted  the  divine  will  and  thereby  hardened  his  own 
heart]  and  God,  to  punish  him,  providentially  arranged  the 
influences  which  led  him  to  harden  his  heart  against  danger, 
and  thereby  hardened  him  to  rush  into  judicial  destruction. 
In  these  cases,  man's  freedom  is  unrestrained.  To  chastise 
David,  the  Lord  acted  upon  the  same  principle,  when  he 
providentially  arranged  such  influences  as  hardened  his  heart 
against  danger  to  number  the  people,  after  David  had  hard- 
ened his  own  heart  against  the  divine  will.  See  i  Chron.  xxi. 
i;  2  Sam.  xxi  v.  i.  In  the  same  way  God  rules  to-day.  The 
rule  may  be  thus  stated :  When  men  harden  their  hearts  against 
God's  will,  persisting  in  wickedness,  he  then  hardens  their 
hearts  against  danger,  to  run  into  punishment  or  destruction; 
and  the  acts  of  men  are  thus  attributed  to  themselves  and  to 
the  Lord. 

19.  Finally,  remember  the  moral  responsibility  of  interpre- 
tation.   These  rules  are  essential  to  the  right  understanding  of 


OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  21 

either  the  Old  or  the  New  Testament.  They  are  the  rules 
that  must,  substantially,  govern  us  in  the  interpretation  of  any 
Code  of  Laws.  Says  Blackstone:  "To  interpret  a  law,  we 
must  inquire  after  the  will  of  the  maker,  which  may  be  col- 
lected either  from  the  words,  the  context,  the  subject-matter, 
the  effects  and  consequences,  or  spirit  and  reason  of  the  law. 
(i)  Words  are  generally  to  be  understood  by  their  usual  and 
most  known  signification;  not  so  much  regarding  the  pro- 
priety of  grammar,  as  their  general  and  popular  use.  .  .  . 
(2)  If  words  happen  still  to  be  dubious,  we  may  establish 
their  meaning  from  the  context,  etc. ,  of  the  same  nature  and 
use  in  the  comparison  of  law  with  laws  that  are  made  by  the 
same  legislator  that  have  some  affinity  with  the  subject,  or 
that  expressly  relate  to  the  same  point." — Blackstone^ s  Com.^ 
Vol.  /.,  //.  59,  61.  Says  Greenleaf:  "The  object  in  all  cases 
is  to  discover  the  intention  of  the  testator.  The  first  and 
most  obvious  mode  of  doing  this  is  to  read  his  will  as  he  has 
written  it  and  collect  his  intention  from  his  words.  But  as 
his  words  refer  to  facts  and  circumstances,  it  is  evident  that 
the  meaning  and  application  of  his  words  can  not  be  ascer- 
tained without  evidence  of  all  the  facts  and  circumstances. 
To  understand  the  meaning  of  any  writer,  we  must  first  be 
apprised  of  the  persons  and  circumstances  that  are  subjects 
of  his  allusions  or  statements ;  and  if  these  are  not  fully  dis- 
closed in  his  work,  we  must  look  for  illustration  to  the  history 
of  the  times  in  which  he  wrote,  and  to  the  works  of  contem- 
poraneous authors." — Greenleaf  07t  Ev.,  Vol.  I.j  p.  328.  Kent 
declares:  "It  is  an  established  rule  in  the  exposition  of  stat- 
utes that  the  intention  of  the  lawgiver  is  to  be  deduced  from 
a  view  of  the  whole,  and  of  every  part  of  the  statute  taken 
and  compared  together." — Kenfs  Com.  on  Law^  Vol.  I.,  p. 
510;  Hedges^  Logic ^  pp.  163-167.     By  these  rules  of  interpre- 


2  2  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

tation  this  book  is  written.  Unless  you  are  willing  to  abide 
by  them,  you  can  not  do  either  the  Bible  or  yourself  justice. 
Let  the  words  sink  into  your  heart : 

"Within  this  awful  volume  lies 
The  mystery  of  mysteries ; 
Oh !  happy  they  of  human  race, 
To  whom  our  God  has  given  grace 
To  hear,  to  fear,  to  read,  to  pray. 
To  lift  the  latch,  to  force  the  way; 
But  better  had  they  ne'er  been  born, 
Who  read  to  doubt^  or  read  to  scomJ''' 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  23 


CHAPTER  HI. 

OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   LAYS   THE   ONLY   ETHICAL   BASIS. 

Like  everything  else,  ethics  must  have  a  reliable  basis. 
Superficial,  false  ethical  writers  know  nothing  of  ethics  or  its 
basis.  To  them  ethics  is  but  common-place  observations, 
maxims,  aphorisms  and  manners,  which  are  subject  to  varia- 
tion according  to  place,  times  and  age.  Such  ethics  (?)  they 
delight  to  quote  from  some  heathen  religion,  philosophy  or 
writer,  and  array  against  the  Bible.  Though  a  purely  right- 
eous ethics  is  indispensable,  its  basis  is,  if  possible,  more  so. 

Old  Testament  Ethics  is  based  upon  the  following  basal 
facts,  principles  and  doctrines : 

I.  Of  God,  the  supreme  moral  Governor  of  the  world. 
— a.  Moral  law  is  essential  to  moral  government.  Without 
law,  no  government.  Whether  in  the  political,  the  material 
or  the  spiritual — the  moral — without  law  all  is  chaos.  ^.  As 
law  does  not  make  or  enforce  itself,  it  must  have  for  its 
origin  and  enforcement  a  maker  and  enforcer.  The  moral 
law,  being  above  man,  must  have  a  Being,  above  man,  to 
make  and  enforce  it.  c.  Authority  is  indispensable  to  the 
making  and  the  enforcing  of  law.  d.  Indispensable  to  au- 
thority are  intelligence  and  personality,  in  all  government. — 
See  Webster^ s  Un.  Diet,  under  ''authority."  Steam,  elec- 
tricity, etc.,  have  power,  but  can  not  have  authority.  While 
there  can  not  well  be  authority  without  power,  there  can  be 
power  without  authority,     e.  From  these  truths  we  must  in- 


24  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

fer  that  a  supreme  moral  Governor  is  indispensable  to  moral 
government.  As  well  talk  of  the  laws  of  our  country  mak- 
ing and  enforcing  themselves,  as  to  talk  of  the  laws  of  the 
moral  government  making  and  enforcing  themselves;  for,  in 
neither  case,  without  intelligent,  personal  law-making  power 
and  authority,  could  law  and  government  be  possible.  It  is, 
therefore,  clear  that  what  men,  who  deny  the  existence,  per- 
sonality and  intelligence  of  God,  call  moral  law  and  moral 
government,  are  not  moral  law  and  moral  government.  They 
have  no  maker,  no  executor,  no  governor ;  if  obeyed,  no  re- 
warder  ;  if  spit  and  trampled  upon,  no  vindicator.  Concern- 
ing that  which  the  atheist  may  call  moral  law  and  moral  gov- 
ernment, the  best  that  can  be  said  is,  that  it  is  a  wise  or  desir- 
able way  of  acting  upon  certain  occasions  and  under  certain 
circumstances,  which  may  be  the  very  reverse  upon  contrary 
occasions  and  under  contrary  circumstances.  That  the  exis- 
tence, etc.,  of  God  is  indispensable  to  ethics  is,  therefore, 
certain.  From  first  to  last  this  must  be  fftaintained.  The  neces- 
sity of  its  maintenance,  and  the  superiority  of  Old  Testament 
ethics  in  this  respect  to  every  species  of  atheism,  appear  from 
the  following:  "A  man  can  enlarge  the  principles  which  he 
follows;  those  principles  can  not  enlarge  him." — Confucius, 
translated  by  Legge,  p.  227.  Hume  knows  nothing  of  law 
and  morality,  but  of  only  customs,  manners,  etc. — Hmne^s 
Essays,  Vol.  2,  sec.  4.  Among  nearly  all  heathen,  this  basal 
fact  to  ethics  but  dimly  appears  and  was  but  rarely  and  faintly 
recognized.  To  stop  and  show  that  God  is  the  basis  of  Old 
Testament  Ethics  would  be  more  than  a  work  of  supereroga- 
tion. 

2.  The  second  basal  plank  of  the  Ethics  of  the  Old 
Testament   is   the   existence  and   immutability  of   the 

MORAL   LAW,    IN    WHICH    IT   IS   SUPERIOR   TO    ATHEISTICAL   AND 

heathen — SO-CALLED — ETHICS.  — u.  Under  the  preceding  point 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  25 

we  saw  that  moral  law  is  indispensable  to  ethics.  Old  Testa- 
ment Ethics,  therefore,  rests  upon  the  existence  of  the  moral 
law.  Denying  the  authority  of  this  law,  infidels  can  know 
nothing  of  the  law  itself.  As  that  profound  thinker,  Julius 
Muller,  remarks :  '  'The  most  essential  and  distinguishing  at- 
tribute 'of  the  moral  law  is,'  its  unconditional  authority."  — 
Chr.  Doc.  Sin.,  Vol.  /.,  /.  35.  Under  the  next— ''^" — the 
reader  will  see  that  infidels  recognize  no  moral  law;  that  so 
far  as  they  use  the  phrase,  "moral  law,"  they  do  so  to.desig- 
nate  only  changeable,  varying  manners,  customs,  etc. — in  no 
two  ages  exactly  alike,  and,  in  the  same  age,  contradictory  to 
each  other  in  different  places,  circumstances,  and  with  differ- 
ent persons,  b.  Old  Testament  Ethics  is  based  upon  the  im- 
mutability of  the  moral  law.  No  age,  no  circumstance,  noth- 
ing can  make  right  wrong  or  wrong  right.  While  certain 
things  may  be  duties  and  privileges  at  certain  times  and  under 
certain  circumstances,  which,  under  their  contrary,  are  the 
reverse,  moral  right  is  always  moral  right  and  moral  wrong 
always  moral  wrong.  To  lie,  to  steal,  to  commit  adultery, 
to  slander,  to  covet,  to  murder,  etc.,  are  sins  done  whenever, 
wherever,  and  under  whatever  circumstances.  Law  is  not  the 
basis  of  moral  right,  but  moral  right  is  the  basis  of  law.  Morai 
right  is  the  expression  of  the  very  relation  and  nature  of  moral 
things.  Moral  right  existed  before  the  "morning  stars  sang 
together  and  all  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy" — in  all  eter- 
nity. While  adopting  the  words  of  Grotius  on  law:  "It  is 
not  something  inward  in  God  or  in  the  divine  will  and  nature, 
but  is  only  the  effect  of  his  will" — volu?iiatis  quidavi  ejffecius — 
I  most  emphatically  dissent  from  his  view,  that  law  must  not 
necessarily  correspond  to  the  nature  of  God.  Anselm  and 
the  Reformers  were  emphatically  right  in  teaching  that  the 
divine  will  must  be  what  the  divine  nature  is.  That  the  will 
must  be  what  the  nature  is,  is  one  of  the  fundamental  truths 


26  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

of  all  true  moral  philosophy.  To  both  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament  Ethics  it  is  fundamental.  Otherwise,  sinners  would 
as  often  will  righteousness  as  sin;  and  angels  as  often  will 
sin  as  righteousness.  ''The  will  of  the  flesh"  (John  i.  3), 
and  the  will  of  the  spirit — of  the  sinner  and  of  the  Christian 
— are  contrary  to  each  other.  See  Rom.  vii.  15-25.  To 
will  right  we  must,  therefore,  while  in  this  imperfect  state,  be 
the  constant  recipients  of  the  experience,  that  ''It  is  God 
that  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  own  good 
pleasure."  (Phil.  ii.  13.)  From  man  being  "in  the  image 
of  God,"  from  these  truths  we  can  but  infer  that  God  wills 
holiness  because  his  nature  is  holiness — unfallen;  just  as  Satan 
wills  sin  because  his  nature  is  sin — is  fallen.  While  the  law 
is  not  the  nature  of  God,  it  is  the  effect  and  likeness  of  that 
nature ;  it  is  the  perfect  reflection  of  his  infinite  holiness  and 
wisdom.  It  must,  therefore,  be  as  unchangeable  as  the  infi- 
nite holiness  of  the  divine  nature.  Law  is  the  positive  enact- 
ment of  this  nature;  it  is  the  expression  of  God's  will.  Law 
is  God's  will,  expressed;  right  is  the  basis  of  law,  expressed 
or  unexpressed.  It  may,  or  may  not,  become  law.  Law 
must  have  a  law-maker,  an  executor  and  subjects.  '  It  is  the 
expression  of  the  law-maker's  will  in  the  relations  of  subjects  to 
each  other  and  to  himself.  Were  there  no  beings  but  himself, 
while  he  would  do  right,  he  would  express  his  will  to  none, 
and,  therefore,  then  no  moral  law.  Of  course,  as  subjection 
to  law  implies  a  higher  power  and  authority  than  the  subject, 
as  God  is  the  supreme  power  and  authority,  he  is  not  subject 
to  law.  Being  infinitely  holy,  he  can  never  be  else  than  infi- 
nitely holy  in  all  his  works.  Should  the  objection  be  here 
raised,  that  as  law  is  the  positive  enactment — expression  of 
the  divine  will,  without  such  enactment  man  would  not  have 
been  subject  to  any  moral  law  or  moral  government,  the  an- 
swer is:  this  is  conceded.     For  without  law  there  can  be  no 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  27 

government.  But,  as  the  divine  plan  was  to  make  man  the 
subject  of  his  moral  government,  such  an  anomaly  could  not 
have  been.  As  well  urge  that  because  positive  enactment  is 
necessary  to  human  government,  there  would  have  been  no 
such  government  without  positive  enactment;  for  God's  plan 
comprehended  both  moral  and  human  law  to  govern  man. 
Law,  then,  being  the  expression  of  the  hoHness  of  the  immu- 
table, divine  nature,  it  can  never  be  relaxed  or  changed. 

As  God's  nature  must  forever  will  only  moral  right,  his  law 
can  never  be  other  than  the  expression  of  moral  right.  As 
Hooker  expresses  it:  "Of  law  there  can  be  no  less  acknowl- 
edged than  that  her  seat  is  in  the  bosom  of  God ;  her  voice, 
the  harmony  of  the  world;  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth  do 
her  homage — the  very  least  feeling  her  care,  and  the  greatest 
as  not  exempt  from  her  power;  both  angels,  and  men,  and 
creatures,  of  what  condition  soever,  though  each  in  different 
sort  and  manner,  yet  all  with  uniform  consent,  admiring  her 
as  the  mother  of  their  peace  and  joy." — EccL  Pol.,  B.  T.,  p. 
106.  Without  this  law,  knowing  only  manners,  customs,  cir- 
cumstances and  conditions  as  our  standard  of  life,  there  is 
nothing  that  may  not  become  ''right."  Sad  is  the  condition 
of  the  world,  as  viewed  from  infidel  notions  of  right.  B.  F. 
Underwood,  a  representative  infidel,  says:  "The  materialist 
maintains  that  good  and  evil  are  only  relative  terms" — /.  ^., 
not  real;  "that  the  former  designates  actions  and  events  that, 
on  the  whole,  are  advantageous  to  man ;  while  the  latter  des- 
ignates actions  that  are  injurious  in  their  results.  Man  has 
learned  in  the  school  of  experience  what  promotes  his  happi- 
ness and  what  diminishes  his  enjoyments.  The  one  he  calls 
good,  the  other  evil.  .  .  .  The  true  foundation  for  all 
morality  is  utility" — /.  ^.,  not  law. — Materialism,  by  Under- 
wood, pp.  14,  15.  Thomas  Hobbes  taught  that,  "Only  what 
we  experience  is  true ;  that  good  and  evil  is  the  agreeable  or 


28  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS  VINDICATED. 

disagreeable  state  of  the  individual  person,  and,  hence,  is  de- 
termined by  our  immediate  feelings,  and  has,  in  no  sense,  a 
general  significancy  beyond  the  individual  person;  that  what 
is  good  for  one  is  not  good  for  another ;  hence,  in  regard  to 
good,  there  can  be  no  general  decision.  Every  one  deter- 
mines this  according  to  his  feelings  or  experience." — Wuttke's 
Eth.,  Vol.  /.,  /.  304.  The  closing  remark  of  the  historian  of 
the  dark  period  of  the  Judges  is  a  good  summary  of  the  re- 
sults of  such  immoral  standards:  ''In  those  days  there  was 
no  king  in  Israel :  every  man  did  that  which  was  right  in  his 
own  eyes.'' — Judges  xxi.  25.  Hobbes,  therefore,  held  that 
whatever  was  not  '^  prescribed  by  the  king  is  morally  indif- 
ferent."— Mac aulay' s  Hist.  Eng.,  Vol.  /.,/.  53;  Leckf  s  Hist. 
Europ.  Mar.,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  n,  122.  On  page  306,  of  his  Study 
oj  Sciolog}',  Herbert  Spencer  acknowledges  the  foolishness  of 
his  own  doctrine — infidelity:  ''A  utilitarian  system  of  ethics 
can  not  at  present  be  thought  out  even  by  the  select  few,  and 
is  quite  beyond  the  reach  of  many."  Of  course,  Spencer's 
plea,  that  the  theological  code  is  so  formed,  is  utterly  without 
reason.  Of  morality :  ''This  standard  is  constantly  chang- 
ing, and  that  it  is  never  precisely  the  same  even  in  the  most 
similar  countries,  or  in  two  successive  generations  even  in  the 
same  country.  The  opinions  which  are  popular  in  any  nation 
vary" — it  would  seem  from  this  that  Mr.  Underwood  missed 
the  mark  widely,  when,  in  the  quotation  above,  he  stated 
that  "the  school  of  experience"  had  settled  right  and  wrong 
— "from  year  to  year;  and  what  in  one  period  is  attacked  as 
a  paradox  of  heresy,  is  in  another  welcomed  as  sober  truth; 
which,  however,  in  its  turn,  is  replaced  by  some  subsequent 
novelty." — Buckle,  in  his  Hist.  Civ.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  129.  Hume 
taught,  that  "General  and  necessary  moral  ideas  there  are 
none;  hence,  moral  conceptions  have  always  a  varying  worth 
and  rest  essentially  upon  custom." — Wuttke' s  Eth. ,  Vol.  I.,  p. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  29 

212.  Voltaire  taught,  that  "Incest,  under  certain  circumstances, 
between  father  and  daughter,  may  be  allowable ;  that  false- 
hoods uttered  out  of  a  good  purpose  are  legitimate ;  and  the 
same  thing  holds  good  of  almost  everything  that  is  unallow- 
able. ...  To  the  objection,  that  with  so  uncertain  a 
basis,  one  might  seek  his  own  welfare  by  stealing  or  robbing, 
etc.,  Voltaire  has  the  ready  answer:  'Then  he  would  get 
hsinged.' ''  —  Wu/tke's  Eth.,Vol.  /.,  p.  319,  quoted  from  Vol- 
taire's  Works,  Paris,  1830.  Under  divisions  "3"  and  ''4"  of 
this  chapter,  this  position  of  infidels  more  fully  appears.  That 
these  infidels,  from  which  the  foregoing  quotations  are  made, 
represent  infidelity,  can  not  be  questioned  by  any  honest  man 
who  is  familiar  with  infidel  writings,  of  any  age.  From  their 
denial  of  God,  the  only  basis  of  law,  their  position  could  not 
be  other  than  a  repudiation  of  all  moral  law  and  moral  gov- 
ernment. 

In  heathenism  we  find  acknowledgment  of  the  moral  law 
but  feeble;  and  in  China,  as  represented  by  Confucius  and 
Buddhism,  the  moral  law  is  unknown — only  mere  aphorisms, 
as  policy;  and  these,  often,  from  purely  selfish  motives.  Thus 
Confucius  says :  "Among  us  .  .  .  the  father  conceals  the 
misconduct  of  his  son,  and  the  son  conceals  the  misconduct 
of  the  father.  Uprightness  is  to  be  found  in  this." — Works 
of  Con/.,  translated  by  Legge, /.  205.  "A  man  can  enlarge 
the  principles  which  he  follows;  those  principles  do  not  en- 
large him." — Idem,  p.  227.  Though  himself  an  infidel,  Lecky 
refutes  his  own  side,  that  it  is  to  the  interest  of  man  to  always 
do  right,  from  earthly  motives.  He  says:  "The  plain  truth 
is,  that  no  proposition  can  be  more  palpably  and  egregiously 
false  than  the  assertion  that,  so  far  as  this  world  is  concerned, 
it  is  invariably  to  the  happiness  of  man  to  pursue  the  most 
virtuous  career." — Hist.  Europ.  Mor.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  d^^.  To 
attempt  to  weaken  the  force  of  Lecky' s  statement  by  taking 


3©  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

issue  with  him,  can  not  help  the  infidel  cause;  for,  if  such 
an  able  writer  as  he  can  not  see  that  it  is  for  our  happiness  to 
always  live  virtuous,  how  can  it  be  proved  that  the  law  of 
nature  is  clear?  Concerning  God,  Max  MuUer  says  :  "Bud- 
dha seems  merciless.  It  is  (the  idea  of  a  personal  creator) 
not  only  denied,  but  even  its  origin,  like  that  of  an  ancient 
myth,  is  carefully  explained  by  him  with  the  minutest  detail." 
— Sci.  Relig.^  p.  171.  But  the  great  doctrine  of  the  existence 
and  the  unchangeableness  of  the  moral  law  and  the  moral 
government  are  too  well  known  as  basal  to  Old  Testament 
Ethics  to  require  that  they  should  here  be  shown  to  be  in  the 
Old  Testament. 

3.  .Old  Testament  Ethics  is  based  upon  the  doctrine 
OF  HUMAN  RESPONSIBILITY.  —  Old  Testament  Ethics,  based 
essentially  upon  the  doctrine  of  man  as  a  subject  to  God's 
moral  government,  is,  therefore,  based  upon  his  moral  respon- 
sibility. The  former  contains  the  latter.  See  especially 
Psalm  li.,  as  but  one  of  thousands  of  illustrations  of  human 
responsibility  with  which  the  Old  Testament  teems.  After 
what  we  read  under  the  last  point,  to  here  stop  to  prove  that 
infidelity  repudiates  human  moral  responsibility  would  be 
imposing  on  the  reader.  Denying  the  moral  lav/,  denying 
the  moral  government,  infidelity  denies  human  moral  respon- 
sibility.    See  the  next  point,  also. 

Of  course,  as  to  the  heathen,  their  hold  upon  the  doctrine 
of  man's  responsibility  can  but  correspond  to  the  feebleness 
with  which  they  hold  to  the  moral  law.  As  Wuttke  remarks : 
"The  consciousness  of  guiltily  incurred  moral  depravity  of 
unredeemed  humanity,  which  gives  to  Christian  morality  a  so 
deeply  earnest  background,  finds  in  heathendom  but  faint  and 
delusory  echoes.  To  the  Chinese  all  reality  is  good.  .  .  . 
To  the  Indian  all  existence  is  equally  good  and  equally  evil ; 
equally  good,  in  that  all  reality  is  the  divine  existence  itself; 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  31- 

equally  evil,  in  that  it  is  at  the  same  time  an  untrue  and  ille-. 
gitimate  self-alienation  of  the  solely  existing  Brahma,  or,  with 
the  Buddhists,  an  expression  of  absolute  nullity.  The  guilt 
lies  not  on  man  but  on  God,  and  on  existence  in  general." — 
Eth.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  42.  The — one  Gibraltar  of  ethics— doctrine 
of  moral  responsibility  of  man,  if  in  nothing  else  superior 
as  an  ethical  book  to  atheism  and  heathenism,  leaves  the  Old 
Testament  infinitely  above  them  both.  The  German  philos- 
opher Kant,  the  greatest  philosopher  of  modern  times,  ex- 
pressed the  feelings  of  the  best  of  all  ages,  and  the  power  of 
this  great  doctrine  over  men,  when  he  said  :  "There  are  two 
things  that  always  awaken,  in  me,  when  I  contemplate  them, 
the  sentiment  of  the  sublime;  they  are  the  starry  heavens  and 
the  moral  nature  of  man.^^ 

4.  Old  Testament  Ethics  based  upon  the  moral  nature 
OF  man  and  the  recognition  of  the  reality  of  sin. — Man's 
moral  nature  is  clear  from  his  moral  responsibility,  for  moral 
responsibility  belongs  to  none  of  the  lower  creation,  however 
near  they  may  seem  to  have  been  created  to  man.  The  He-' 
brew  word  for  sin,  '^'{^r\—chata — and  its  family,  means  ''to 
miss, 'not  to  hit  the  mark,  ...  to  make  a  false  step," 
and  from  this,  "to  sin;  /.  ^.,  to  err  from  the  path  of  duty  and 
right,  ...  to  incur  as  penalty." — Ges.  Lex.  Heb.  Its 
occurrences  in  the  Old  Testament  are  nearly  five  hundred, 
nearly  all  of  which  point  to  violation  of  moral  law.  There  are 
other  words  rendered  sin,  pj^ — avon^  ^^^—psha^  DtJ*i^ 
— ashavi,  occurring  a  few  times,  the  latter  in  a  generic  way, 
conveying  the  same  moral  idea.  They  indicate  the  same  idea 
that  the  New  Testament  word  afiaQna — hamarlia — for  sin, 
indicates.  Of  course,  as  the  Greeks  had  but  feeble  ideas  of 
sin,  a\iagTLa — ha7nartia — attained  only  its  full  moral  idea  by 
its  adoption  into  Christian  ethics  — first  into  the  Septuagint, 


32  OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

tiien  into  the  New  Testament.  Rationalists,  as  De  Wette, 
Hupfeld,  Gesenius,  agree  that  these  words  indicate  the  moral 
idea.  [See  Chr.  Doc.  Sin,  Vol.  I., pp.  92-94,  199-203,  by  Julius 
Muller.  Compare  Ges.  Lex.  Heb.  on  them  all;  Hengsten- 
berg  and  Hupfeld  on  Psalms,  et  aL]  "To,, do  evil  in  the 
presence  of  a  revealed  God,  is  to  sin  against  God. 
(DN'iyNyNtOr?  Gen.  xxxix  9;  Comp.  xiii.  13;  ii.  6.)  And 
this  is  not  merely  as  the  form  of  the  consciousness  developing 
itself  under  the  law,  but  in  consequence  of  express  declara- 
tion, 'Whosoever  hath  sinned  against  me,  him  will  I  blot  out 
of  my  book'  (^^'^^H*^^*?^  Exod.  xxxii.  33),  a  repetition  of 
that  which  was  spoken  to  our  first  parents,  and  suspended 
over  them.  — Gen.  iii.  8.  Hence,  also,  the  confession,  'We 
have  sinned  against  thee.' — Deut.  i.  41.  With  the  law  begins 
the  consciousness  of  being  debtors.  ...  In  this  mutual 
relation,  the  discord  which  necessarily  exists  between  holiness 
and  unholiness  reaches  its  acme,  and,  at  the  same  time,  is 
fully  revealed :  sin  has  showed  itself  in  its  true  nature." — 
Harkss'  Chj\  Eth.,  p.  112.  Sin  implies,  first,  a  Supreme 
Ruler  to.sin  against';  second,  a  law  from  him  to  violate ;  third, 
a  moral  being  to  violate  that  law.  Without  a  being,  above 
man,  against  whom  to  sin,  he  could  only  trespass  on  the  rights 
of  his  fellow  creatures.  All  sin,  as  sin  is  violation  of  moral 
law,  is  a  strike  at  its  Maker  and  Authority )  is  against  only 
God,  as  he  only  is  its  Maker  and  Authority.  As  sin  is  "trans- 
gression of  the  law;"  if  no  moral  law — nothing  but  the  few 
expressions  of  human  legislation  and  manners  and  customs — ■ 
:here  could  be  no  sin — no  transgression  of  moral  law;  and 
if  no  beings  of  a  moral  nature,  there  could  be  no  violation  o( 
moral  law — sin.  Old  Testament  Ethics  brings  this  out  on 
every  page.  In  its  over  five  hundred  occurrences  of  words 
for  sin,  its  expressing  sin  in  other  and  endless  ways,  like  thou- 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  33 

sands  of  fire-bells,  the  Old  Testament,   in  the  sinner's  ear, 
sounds  the  alarm  of  the  "fire  that  is  not  quenched." 

a.  Infidelity  knows  nothing  of  "what  is  man,"  of  a  moral 
nature;  it  knows  only  a  higher  developed  animal,  yet  just 
high  enough  to  not  reach  the  realm  of  moral  responsibihty. 
Haeckel,  the  ablest  and  leading  infidel  materialist  of  Germany, 
says :  "Between  the  most  highly  developed  animal  souls,  and 
the  lowest  human  souls,  there  exists  only  a  small  quantitative, 
but  no  qualitative,  difference." — Hist.  Creation,  Vol.  II., p.  362. 
Carl  Vogt,  a  representative  infidel  of  Germany,  says  that  it 
is  "presumption  in  man  to  pretend  to  be  anything  essentially 
different  from  the  brute  ;  man  belonged  originally  to  the  ape 
race,  and  has  only  gradually  developed  somewhat  more 
highly.  Man  is  guided  and  impelled,  just  as  the  brute,  by 
his  own  nature ;  that  is,  by  the  law  of  his  material  existence, 
and  with  inner  irresistible  necessity;  the  distinguishing  be- 
tween morally  good  and  evil  actions  is  merely  self-deception." 
— Quoted  by  Wuttke' s  Eth. ,  Vol.  /.,  /.  355.  Moleschott,  an- 
other representative  German  infidel,  remarks:  "To  compre- 
hend everything,  involves  also  the  justifying  of  everything." 
— Idem  et  ibid.  On  the  ground  of  the  brute  nature  of  man, 
Moleschott  deprecates  the  Christian  and  Hebrew  tenderness 
and  humanity  in  burying  their  dead,  and  says*  that  they 
"should  be  used  for  manuring  the  fields." — Ibid.  From  the 
infidel  doctrine  of  the  origin  and  nature  of  man,  moral  nature, 
moral  responsibility,  even  were  there  a  moral  law,  is  as  impos- 
sible as  impossible  can  be  ;  for,  how  is  it  possible  for  man  to 
be  a  moral  being,  because  a  little  higher  in  the  scale  of  de^ 
velopment  than  the  highest  brute  ?  As  well  talk  of  the  hig.'''" 
est  brute,  below  man,  being  responsible,  or  more  responsibi  ' 
than  its  jelly  ancestor !  On  infidel  ground,  there  is  no  mort 
moral  law  to  restrict  the  sexual,  and  the  other  relations  of 
human  beings  to  each  other,  than  there  is  such  law  to  restrict 


34  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

the  lower  order  of  brutes — if  man  is  a  brute.  Hence,  canni- 
balism, the  destruction  of  the  weak  by  the  strong,  etc.,  are  as 
destitute  of  moral  quality  with  man — the  higher  brute — as 
with  the  lower  brutes. 

''The  moral  sparing  of  man  as  an  object  of  moral  activity, 
presupposes  that  we  have  to  do  with  real  men,  men  who  are 
not  only  similar  to  us,  but  who  are  bound  to  us  as  members  of 
our  body.  To  creatures  which,  while  belonging  to  the  zoo- 
logical order  bimana,  and,  while  differing  from  the  ape  in 
formation  of  the  skull  and  feet  and  by  an  erect  walk,  yet  who 
should  have  been  from  old  distinguished  in  origin  and  also  in 
their  spiritual  nature  from  the  so-called  nobler  race  of  whites, 
we  could  not  come  into  the  same  moral  relation  as  to  those 
who  are  our  brethern.  The  question  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
races  of  men  has  a  deep  moral  significancy,  and  is  of  a  fun- 
damental importance  for  ethics." — Eth.^  Vol.  II.. p.  152. 

Max  Muller  says :  "What  distinguishes  man  from  all  other 
creatures,  and  not  only  raises  him  above  the  animal  world, 
but  removes  him  from  the  confines  of  mere  natural  existence, 
is  the  feeling  of  sonship"  (not  of  apeship,  or  son  of  an  ape  or 
tadpole)  '  'inherent  and  inseparable  from  human  nature.  That 
feeling  may  find  expression  in  a  thousand  ways,  but  there 
breathes  through  all  of  them  the  inextinguishable  conviction. 
It  is  He  that  made  us"  (not  ape  or  evolution),  "and  not  we 
ourselves.'" — Max  Midler's  Chips,   Vol.  I,  p.  351. 

"Lecky  remarks:     "Nature  does  not  tell  man  that  it  is 
wrong  to  slay  without  provocation  his  fellow-man." — Hist. 
Europ.  Mor.,   Vol.  II.,  p.  19. 
/"'Hence,  Carl  Vogt  declares,  "all  so-called  sins  and  crimes 

J  only  consequences  of  a  defective  nutrition,  and  of  an  im- 
^jerfect  organization  of  the  brain;  hence,  there  can  be  no 
manner  of  moral  responsibility." — Wuttke's  Eth.  Vol.  I,  p. 
355.    According  to  such  immoral  theories,  in  giving  the  young 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  35. 

wives  of  old  men  to  young  men  to  raise  up  children  for  the 
State,  ancient  Greece  was  more  than  justifiable ;  and,  in  mur- 
dering deformed  infants  and  old  and  infirm  parents,  the  an- 
cient heathen  were  charitable,  in  that  they  saved  them  much 
suffering,  and,  at  the  same  time,  were  more  economical  than 
ourselves,  as  they  thus  saved  their  labor  and  money  for  better 
use  than  in  wasting  it  upon  those  who  could  never  be  other 
than  a  burden  to  themselves  and  to  others.  Be  not  starded; 
infidelity  boldly  swallows,  avows,  such  consequences.  Prof. 
Haeckel,  a  learned  infidel,  a  professor,  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  in  one  of  the  learned  German  universities,  in  Vol.  I.,- 
p.  173,  of  Hist.  Creation,  makes  a  commendatory  allusion  to 
the  Spartan  custom  of  destroying  invalid  offspring — com- 
mending the  most  cruel  murder !  Commenting  on  Herbert 
Spencer's  ''Data  of  Ethics"— Spencer  is  a  leading  infidel— 
the  Nation  well  says:  "If  now,  I,  a  defective  and  imper- 
fecdy  evolved  creature,  full  of  joy  and  battle  and  other  sur- 
vivals from  a  savage  state,  say  to  Mr.  Spencer,  'I  know 
nothing  of  your  highest  life,  or  knowing  it,  despise  it ;'  and  if 
I  add  to  my  other  riotous  deeds  the  sneering  at  evolution  and 
the  writing  of  sarcasm  on  its  eventual  milk-and-water  paradise, 
saying,  I  prefer  to  go  on  as  my  ancestors  and  enjoy  this 
delicious  mess  of  fears  and  strivings,  and  agonies  and  exulta- 
tions, of  dramatic  catastrophes  and  supernatural  visions, 
of  excesses,  in  short,  in  every  direction  which  make  of  human 
life  the  rich  contradictory  tissue  of  good  and  evil  it  now  is, 
how  shall  Mr.  Spencer  reduce  me  to  order  or  coerce  me  to 
bow  the  knee  ?  He  is  impotent  over  me  by  any  theoretical 
appeal,  and  frankly  confesses  as  much.  Moral  obligation  he 
admits  (p.  128)  to  be  a  transitory  element  in  the  moral  life, 
and  he  tries  with  considerable  originality  to  show  how  the 
sense  of  it  arises  by  associations  of  wrong  conduct  with  ex- 
ternal natural  penalties  and  social  restraints.     With  advancing 


36  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

evolution  and  increasing  orderly  spontaneity,  the  coerciveness 
of  the  ought  will  little  by  little  disappear.  Even  now  I  ought 
to  do  a  thing  only  on  condition  that  I  dread  certain  conse- 
quences from  not  doing  it.  I  do  not  happen  to  dread  them, 
I  go  free.  This  polemically  weak  point  Mr.  Spencer  shares 
with  all  hedonistic  or  otherwise  confessedly  subjective  sys- 
tems of  morality.  His  only  superiority  over  them  is  this,  that 
he  has  one  more  material  bribe  to  offer  men  in  behalf  of  vir- 
tue than  they,  one  more  bugbear  to  deter  them  from  vice. 
Your  way  will  inevitably  fail,  he  can  say.  Evolution's  fatal 
tide  will  leave  you  naked,  and  high  and  dry,  unless  you  join 
it.  But  if  I  am  so  ill-conditioned  as  to  prefer  to  remain  alone 
as  a  spectacle  of  impotent  perversity  to  the  ages,  his  arguments 
are  at  an  end,  and  he  must  resort  to  brute  force,  if  to  any- 
thing, in  order  to  lead  men  at  his  chariot  wheel."  But  this 
critic  on  Mr.  Spencer  has  not  urged  more  than  half; 
for  history  shows  that  [see  Lecky's  Europ.  Mor.]  men, 
without  the  aid  of  the  Bible,  have  never  agreed  what  should 
— no  ought  \i^xQ, — be  done.  [See,  also,  ''2,"  in  this  chapter, 
and  ''^."] 

Commenting  on  Shelley's  tribute  to  man,  Mr.  Mozley  truly 
remarks :  ^'Had  the  poet  been  asked  whence  he  got  this  idea 
of  man,  this  sense  of  the  dignity  of  man,  of  how  much  there 
\ras  in  him,  and  what  was  due  to  him,  he  could  not  have 
pointed  to  a  single  ancient  philosopher  as  his  teacher.  The 
ancient  world  had  no  such  idea,  and  had  such  a  notion  been 
suggested  to  one  of  its  luminaries,  he  would  have  scouted  it 
as  visionary  and  fantastic.  The  poet  has  got  this  idea  out  of 
the  Bible,  however  reluctant  he  might  be  to  own  it.  It  does 
not  elsewhere  exist  but  only  in  revelation  and  the  derivatives 
from  revelation.  This  is  a  mattar  of  fact." — Ruli7ig  Ideas  of 
Early  Ages^  p.  233. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  37 

b.  Infidelity,  therefore,  as  appears  in  the  foregoing,  mocks 
at  the  very  idea  of  the  existence  of  sin. 

If  the  reader  will  bear  with  me,  I  will  add  the  statements 
of  other  infidels.  Bolingbroke,  the  "chief  representative"  of 
infidelity,  of  the  seventeenth  century,  in  England,  taught  that 
shamefulness  is  only  an  aspiration  of  something  better  than 
the  brute,  as  it  is  a  mere  social  prejudice;  polygamy  is  not 
immoral ;  on  the  contrary,  it  harmonizes  with  the  law  of 
nature;  wedlock  communion  is  disallowable  only  between 
parents  and  children,  for  the  highest  law  and  end  of  marriage 
is  propagation." — Wiitike's  Eth.,  Vol.  /.,  p.  313.  Robert 
Owen,  a  leading  American  infidel,  during  the  first  of  our  cen- 
tury, remarked:  ''Now  we  are  so  formed  that  we  may  not 
have  any  kind  of  control  in  the  formation  of  ourselves,  of  our 
physical  propensities,  of  our  intellectual  faculties  and  proper- 
ties and  qualities.  .  .  .  It  is  said  that  there  is  no  differ- 
ence between  men,  and  that  is  true.  .  .  .  But  whether 
superior  or  inferior,  they  were  not  designed  by  the  individual 
possessing  them,  and  he  can  not,  therefore,  deserve  any  merit 
or  demerit  for  having  them,  or  be  made,  without  great  injus- 
tice, responsible  for  them." — Ca7?ip bell- Owen  Debate,  p.  41. 
Buckle,  not  long  deceased:  ''The  offenses  of  man  are  not 
so  much  the  vices  of  the  individual  offender,  as  the  society  in 
which  he  is  thrown.  .  .  .  The  moral  actions  of  men  are 
the  products,  not  of  their  own  volitions,  but  of  their  ante- 
cedents."— Hist.  Civ.,  Vol.  /.,  /.  22.  According  to  Mr. 
Buckle  &  Co.,  instead  of  the  law  hanging  the  criminal,  it  ought 
to  hang  "the  society  in  which  he  is  thrown;"  and  instead  of 
hanging  "the  society  in  which  he  is  thrown,"  it  ought  to  hang 
the  society  in  which  his  "society  is  thrown;"  instead  of  hang- 
ing that  "society,"  hang  its  "volitions  and  antecedents  !"  The 
explanation  of  the  difficulty  here  implied,  is :  Man  is  never 
governed,  but  only  influenced  by  circumstances.     Man  \^  forced 


38  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

to  obey  government;  to  influences  he  isft'ee  to  yield  or  not 
yield.  In  an  American  infidel  book,  entitled  ' '  Poems  of  the 
Inner  Life,"  one  of  its  doggerels  reads :  "Evil  is  of  good,  born 
of  God  and  no  other."  For  Charles  XII.,  whom  Buckle  char- 
acterizes as,  "his  only  merits,  that  he  had  ravaged  many  coun- 
tries and  killed  many  men"  {idem,  p.  576),  Buckle  says  that 
Voltaire's  "admiration  was  unbounded."  —  Idem,  p.  577. 
Again :  "Not  only  does  Voltaire  dwell  at  needless  length  upon 
the  debaucheries  of  Louis,  .  .  .  but  he  displays  evident 
disposition  to  favor  the  king  himself,  and  to  protect  his  name 
from  the  infamy  with  which  it  is  covered." — Idem,  p.  579. 
Le  Play  quotes  Voltaire  :  "The  private  life  of  Louis  XIV. 
has  furnished  a  model  for  men  as  it  has  sometimes  for  kings." 
— Orgmazition  Labor,  p.  105.  Voltaire's  "Pucelle"  was  only 
a  sneer  at  virtue,  many  parts  of  which  are  polluted  with  the 
grossest  obscenities. 

Even  to  his  own  corrupt  age  his  private  life  was  a  scandal. 
The  youthful  mind  of  France,  Diderot — a  leading  infidel — 
with  indecent  novels  polluted.  His  lawful  wife  he  abandoned, 
and  formed  an  attachment  first  with  Mme.  Prussiux,  and  then 
with  Mile.  Voland.  The  French  Encyclopedists,  the  literary 
men  of  France  for  the  forty  years  preceding  that  horrible  rev- 
olution, were  infidels,  and  fired  the  hearts  of  France  with  lust 
and  blood,  which  filled  France  with  the  darkest  days  the 
world  has  ever  witnessed.  Knowing  nothing  of  virtue  and 
morality,  they  made  no  discrimination  between  the  tyranny 
of  Jesuitism  and  between  morality  and  virtue.  Before  strong 
but  immoral  minds,  Jesuitism  and  morality  were  equally  swept 
from  France.  See  Buckleys  Hist.  Civ,,  Vol.  I.  Even  Buckle 
characterizes  much  of  this  infidel  Hterature  as  "shameless 
productions." — Idem,  Vol.  /.,  /.  170.  See  Le  Play's  Org. 
Labor,  pp.  159,  160,  etc.  As  one  of  the  many  sources,  the 
reader  made  find  in  Greg^s  Literacy  and  Social  Judgments — the 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  39 

work  of  an  infidel — illustrations  of  the  immoral  results  of  infidel 
writers  in  France  for  both  the  past  and  the  present.    Of  the  peri- 
od in  the  life  of  Goethe,  the  great  German  poet,  before  he 
turned  from  infidelity,  Joseph  Cook  remarks  that  "he  was  in- 
capable of  surrender  to  the  moral  sentiment." — Cook's  Biology, 
p.  278.    Commenting  on  Goethe's  life,  when,  as  an  infidel,  he 
read  and  adopted  another  infidel's  view  for  suicide,  and  when 
he  says :  ''Among  a  considerable  collection  of  arms,  I  possessed 
a  cosdy,  well-ground  dagger.     This  I  laid  nightly  beside  my 
bed;  and,  before  extinguishing  the  light,   I  tried  whether  I 
could  succeed  in  sending  the  sharp  point  an  inch  or  two  into 
my  breast" — the  time  when  all  was  gloom  to  him;  and  com- 
menting on  the  change,  and  on  a  book  he  wrote  before  and 
on  one  he  wrote  after  the  change  from  infidelity — commenting 
on  the  Hfe,  thus  before  he  abandoned  infidelity  and  after,  the 
late  lamented  Thomas  Carlyle  says:   ''A  very  wide  and  very 
important  interval  divides  Werter — the  book  written  while  an 
infidel  contemplaUng  suicide — with  its  skeptical  philosophy 
and  'hypochondriacal  crochets,'  from  Goethe's  next  novel, 
Wilhdni  Meistet^s  Apprenticeship,  published  some  twenty  years 
afterward.     This  work  belongs,  in  all  senses,  to  the  second 
and  sounder  part  of  Goethe's  life;  and  may  indeed  serve  as 
the  fullest,  if,  perhaps,  not  the  purest  impress  of  it.     .     .     . 
For  he  has  conquered  his  unbelief;  the  ideal  has  been  built 
on  the  actual;  no  longer  floats  vaguely  in  darkness  and  regions 
of  dreams ;  but  rests  in  light,  on  the  firm  ground  of  human 
interest  and  business.     For  Goethe  has  not  only  suffered  and 
mourned,  in  bitter  agony,  under  the  spiritual  perplexities — an 
infidel  age — but  he  has  also  mastered  these;  he  is  above  them, 
and  has  shown  others  how  to  rise  above  them.    At  one  time  we 
found  him  in  darkness,  and  now  he  is  in  light;  he  was  once 
an  unbeliever,  and  now  he  is  a  believer.     .     .     .     How  has 
this  man,  to  whom  the  world  once  offered  nothing  but  black- 


40  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

ness  and  despair,  attained  to  that  better  vision  which  now 
shows  it  to  him ;  not  tolerable  only,  but  full  of  solemnity  and 
loveliness?" — Carlyle' s  Essay  on  Goethe.  Verily,  instead  of, 
as  an  infidel,  lying  down  to  sleep  with  his  dagger  to  murder 
himself,  he  has  come  as  a  saint  to  say:  "I  will  both  lay  me 
down  in  peace  and  sleep"  (Ps.  iv.  8);  ''Great  peace  have  all 
they  which  love  thy  law"  (Ps.  cxix.  165) ;  ''Happy  is  the  man 
that  walketh  not  in  the  counsel  of  the  ungodly,  nor  standeth 
in  the  way  of  sinners,  nor  sitteth  in  the  seat  of  the  scorrifur 
(Ps.  i.  1-3).  The  sweet  invitation  he  has  accepted — "Ho, 
every  one  that  thirsteth,  come  ye  to  the  waters,  and  he  that 
hath  no  money;  come  ye,  buy,  and  eat;  yea,  come,  buy 
wine  and  milk  without  money  and  without  price." — Isa.  Iv.  i. 
The  darkness  of  immorality  and  skepticism  Goethe  had 
thrown  away  for  the  sweet,  life-giving  fountain  of  Old  Testa- 
ment Ethics. 

Having  passed  through  something  of  the  same  experi- 
ence, Carlyle  could  rejoice  in  Goethe's  change.  Says  Emer- 
son :  "Every  man  is  indebted  to  his  vices;  virtues  grow  out 
of  them  as  a  fruitful  plant  grows  out  of  manure.  There  is 
hope  for  the  reprobate,  and  the  ruffian,  in  the  fullness  of 
time."  "To  say  that  the  majority  of  men  are  wicked,  is  only 
to  say  that  they  are  young." — Fables  Inf.^  p.  104,  quoted  from 
The  Ce7itral Herald.'^  According  to  this,  we  need  but  plenty 
of  vice — "manure" — to  have  plenty  of  virtue !  Theodore  Par- 
ker, a  representative  American  infidel,  and  to  whom  we  are 

*Since  writing,  Mr.  Emerson  has  gone  to  give  an  account  to  the  Just 
Judge.  While  it  is  with  pain  and  sorrow,  yet  with  boldness  I  must 
reiterate  the  words  of  Jesus,  as  applicable  to  Emerson  as  to  Paine  and 
Ingersoll:  "He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." — Mark  xvi.  16. 
I  feel  conscientiously  bound  to  add  this  note,  as  a  kind  but  firm  rebuke 
to  the  "uncertain  sound,"  given  by  some  orthodox  pens,  with  refer- 
ence to  Mr.  Emerson  while  living,  and  especially  since  dead.  Because 
of  his  refinement  and  influence,  few  infidels  have  done  the  harm  that, 
it  is  feared,  Mr.  Emerson  has  done. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  4I 

indebted  (?),  more  than  to  any  other  man,  for  the  translation 
and  transfer  of  the  fearful  German  literature  and  infidelity 
that  so  cursed  Goethe,  says:   ''No  sin  can  make  an  indelible 
mark  on  what  we  call  the  soul." — Weiss'  Life  of  Parker,  p. 
149.     Any  one  would  think,  from  the  life  of  nearly  all  lead- 
ing infidels,  that  they  really  believed  this.    Of  Parker,  Joseph 
Cook  says  :   "He  held  that,  at  the  last  analysis,  sin  is  a  defect 
of  the  judgment,  or  a  necessary  incident  in  our  moral  devel- 
opment;  and  that,   therefore,    'every  fall  is  a  fall  upward.' 
The  phrase,  I  think,  has  often  been  cited  as  typical  of  Par- 
ker's thought.     Again,  said  Parker  :   'To  the  wickedest  life 
there  is  no  failure.' " — Cook's  Orthodoxy,  pp.  121,  122;  Froth- 
ingham's  Life  of  Parker.     According  to  Parker's,  Emerson's 
doctrine — the  very  same  as  all  we  have  been  noticing  of  all 
infidelity;  and  before  me  lies  an  infidel  prayer  to  the  devil, 
expressing  the  same,  taken  from  an  infidel  paper,  the  Baimer 
of  Light,  of  December  21,  1861,  found  in  McDonald  oji  Spir- 
itualism—wh^n   Guiteau   mui^ered   the    President,  he   com- 
mitted only  what  was  a  ^'necessary  incident  in  our  moral  de- 
velopment;" and  met  with  one  of  those  falls  which  is  "a  fall 
upward."    Over  Guiteau' s  grave  may,  accordingly,  be  written 
the  words  of  Parker:   "To  the  wickedest  life  there  is  no  fail- 
ure."    Tom  Paine' s  Hfe  was  one  of  rascahty,  licentiousness, 
profanity,    scoffing   and  drunkenness.     Withm   the  last   few 
years  I  have  collected  any  amount  of  evidence  to  prove  this, 
and  expose  the  cunning  attempt  to  rake  ofi"  him  the  filth  with 
which  he  covered  himself.    Of  Paine,  John  Adams  remarked : 
"If  he  was  the  author  of  the  American  Revolution,  I  desire 
that  my  name  may  be  blotted  out  forever  from  its  records."— 
/oh7t  Adafns'  Works,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  168.     For  Paine' s  character, 
SQQjohn  Adams'  Works,  also,  Vol.  IX.,  p.  627;  old  edition  of  En- 
cyclop.  Brit.,   Vol.  XVIL,  p.  45;   Dyckinck's  Encychp.  Am. 
Lit.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  200;  Hildreth's  Hist.  U.  S.,  Vol.  I,  p.  696;  Vol. 


42  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

//.,  p,  456.     Even  an  infidel,  Byron,  learning  that  Paine's 
bones  were  secretly  carried  away  to  England  by  Cobbett,  wrote : 

**In  digging  up  your  bones,  Tom  Paine, 
Will  Cobbett  has  done  well; 
You'll  visit  him  on  earth  again, 
He'll  visit  you  in  hell." 

Of  the  licentiousness  of  French  infidelity,  Hume  approv- 
ingly says:  "Our  neighbors,  it  seems,  have  resolved  to  sac- 
rifice some  of  the  domestic  to  the  social  pleasures;  and  to 
prefer  ease,  freedom,  and  an  open  commerce,  to  a  strict  fidel- 
ity and  constancy ;  these  ends  are  both  good  and  are  some- 
what diihcult  to  reconcile." — Hume's  Essays,  Vol.  JI.,  p.  389. 
Says  Andrew  Fuller:  "Herbert,  Hobbes,  Shaftesbury,  Wool- 
ston,  Tyndall,  Chubb  and  Bolingbroke,  are  all  guilty  of  vile 
hypocrisy  in  professing  to  love  and  reverence  Christianity, 
while  they  are  employed  in  no  other  design  than  to  destroy 
it.  The  morals  of  Rochester  and  Wharton  need  no  comment. 
Woolston  was  a  gross  blasphemer.  Blount  solicited" — by  the 
way,  Tom  Paine  stole  most  of  his  vile  stuff  from  Blounfs 
Oracles  of  Reason — "his  sister-in-law  to  marry  him,  and,  being 
refused,  shot  himself.  .  .  .  Voltaire,  in  a  letter  now  re- 
maining, requested  his  friend  D'Alembert  to  tell  for  him  a 
direct  and  palpable  lie,  by  denying  that  he  was  the  author  of 
the  Philosophical  Dictionary.  .  .  .  Collins,  though  he  had 
no  regard  for  Christianity,  yet  qualified  himself  for  civil  office 
by  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Shaftesbury  did  the  same, 
and  the  same  is  done  by  hundreds  of  infidels  to  this  day.  .  . 
Godwin  is  not  only  a  lewd  character  by  his  own  confession, 
but  the  unblushing  advocate  of  lewdness.  As  to  Paine,  he  is 
well  known  to  have  been  a  profime  swearer  and  a  drunkard; 
and,  we  have  evidence  upon  oath,  that  religion  was  his  favor- 
ite topic  when  intoxicated.    (See  trial  of  Tom  Paine,  at  Guild- 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  43 

hall,  for  a  libel,  etc.,  p.  43-)  I  shall  conclude  the  catalogue 
of  worthies  from  a  brief  abstract  of  the  Confessions  of  J.  J. 
Rousseau :  'I  have  been  a  rogue,  and  am  so  still  sometimes, 
for  trifles  which  I  would  rather  take  than  ask  for.'  .  .  He 
resided  with  Madame  de  Warrens,  with  whom  he  'Hved  in 
the  greatest  familiarity.'  This  lady  often  suggested— just  as 
all  infidels  say — 'that  there  would  be  no  justice  in  the  Supreme 
Being,  should  he  be  strictly  just  to  us;  because,  not  having 
bestowed  what  was  essential  to  make  us  good,  it  would  require 
more  than  he  had  given.'  .  .  .  'Finding  her  with  all 
these  ideas,  I  had  occasion  for  to  secure  me  from  the  fears  of 
death,  and  its  future  consequences;  I  dre-h  confidence  and 
security  from  this  source.'" — Works  of  Ajidrew  Fuller,  Vol. 
II.,  pp.  36-38;  Rousseau's  Conf.,  London  edition,  Vol.  /.,  //. 
52,  55,  68;  Vol.  II.,  pp.  88,  89,  103-106. 

Before  our  eyes  is  an  illustration  in  the  English  scoffer, 
Bradlaugh,  offering  to  take  the  oath  in  order  to  a  seat  in  Par- 
liament. The  notorious  infidel  author  and  publisher  of  New 
York,  Bennett,  who  was  acknowledged  by  his  friends  a  se- 
ducer, who  spent  a  term  in  the  penitentiary,  after  filling  our 
land  with  infidel  filth;  IngersoU,  as  shown  up  by  Braden;  the 
cry  of  infidelity  against  Comstock,  for  his  stopping  the  scores 
of  tons  of  obscene  papers,  pictures,  etc.,  in  the  New  York 
Post-office,  before  the  mails  have  put  them  into  the  hands  of 
our  young  people;  red  flag  communism,  etc.,  etc. — all  these 
exhibitions  of  infidelity  are  open  to  us.  From  the  New  York 
Ledger,  of  May  i,  1880.  I  cHpped  the  following  letter:  'T 
am  an  infidel  and  glory  in  my  mental  freedom.  I  pity  all 
who  are  bound  with  the  galling  chain— religious  superstition. 
I  have  a  wife  whom  I  once  loved,  but  long  ago  that  feeling 
left  me.  She  is  an  invalid,  and  the  doctor  says  she  can  not 
live  more  than  a  year.  Now,  there  is  a  lady  in  this  neigh- 
borhood whom  I  do  love,  but  she  is  sought  after  by  other 


44  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

suitors;  and  I  am  afraid  if  I  do  not  manage,  in  some  way,  to 
free  myself  pretty  soon,  she  will  be  lost  to  me  forever,  and  I 
will  be  rendered  most  miserable.  As  things  are,  two  lives  are 
made  unhappy;  she  would  be  free  from  her  intense  pain  and 
I  made  free.  Why  could  I  not  administer  to  her  some  poison 
that  would  send  her  quietly  off?  Would  I  not  be  justified  in 
so  doing?"  Let  the  reader  caretuUy  compare  this  letter  from 
this  criminal  wretch  with  the  words  and  lives  of  all  classes  of 
infidels  as  set  forth  in  this  chapter,  and  see  if  he  is  not  simply 
acting  out  his  principles.*  Why  should  he  not  take  one  of 
Theodore  Parker's  falls  ''upward,"  at  this  time?  This  would 
be  nothing  in  comparison  with  French  infidelity  of  the  eight- 
eenth century.  Its  licentiousness  was  accompanied  by  cruel 
and  the  most  wholesale  murder  on  the  pages  of  history.  Thiers 
estimates  the  number  that  they  murdered  at  1,022,351,  includ- 
ing 15,000  women;  1,135  ^^^^  ^^  child-birth,  3,400  in  child- 
birth— from  grief  at  the  terrible  picture.  Read  especially  Thiers' 
Hist.  French  Rev., Vol.  III.,  pp.  224-226;  Allison's  Hist.  Eu- 
rop., Vol.  I.,  pp.  271,  272;  Le  Play's  Org.  Labor,  pp.  108,380, 
381,  386,  389,  399,  400;  Buckle's  Hist.  Civ.,  e^ a/.  Buchner, 
a  leading  infidel  writer,  says  that  the  principles  of  infidelity 
found  their  '  'outward  expression  in  the*  great  French  Revolu- 
tion."— Hist  Mat.,  p.  II.  See  Chapter  XIII.,  and  latter  part 
of  "IL"  of  this  book. 

Grecian  and  Roman  civilization  were  originated  and  sus- 
tained by  the  dim  extent  to  which  its  people  held  the  ethics 
of  the  Old  Testament.  But  Draper,  an  able  American  in- 
fidel writer,  tells  us  that  infidelity  destroyed  their  faith  in 
these  ethics,  and  that  then  came  the  downfall  of  their  civil- 
ization. See  Draper's  Intel.  Develop.  Europ.,  pp.  120,  126, 
192;  Lecky's  Europ.  Mor.,  tells  us  the  same.     The  illustra- 


*  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  every  infidel  is  <*immoral"  in  practice  ; 
for  some  are  exceptions,  they  rise  above  the  results  of  their  principles. 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  45 

tioiis  of  infidel  principles,  in  their  writings,  and  in  their  lives, 
and  upon  the  world,  can  be  easily  multiplied.     But  these  are 
sufficient.     They  represent  every  age,  every  country,  every 
class  of  infidels.     Such  writers  as  Haeckel,  Vogt,  Moleschott, 
Parker,   Buckle,  Voltaire,   Hume,  etc.,  etc.,  quoted,  referred 
to  in  the  foregoing,  will  not  be  called  in  question  as  fair  repre- 
sentatives of  infidelity.     Well  did  Hume  say:   * 'Render  men 
totally  indifferent  to  these" — /.  <?.,  moral— ''distinctions;  and 
morality  is  no  longer  a  practical  duty,  nor  has  any  tendency 
to  regulate  our  lives  and  actions." — Hmiie's  Essays^  Vol,  II., p. 
218.     And  Haeckel  admits  that  the  infidel  "theory  will  rev- 
olutionize politics,  morals  and  principles  of  justice." — Haeck- 
ets  Hist.  Creation,  Vol.  II,  pp,  2>^^,  369.     This  is  one  sen- 
tence no  one  can  call  in  question.    But  is  any  moral  man  and 
good  citizen  ready  to  welcome  this  infidel  revolution?     The 
following  may  close  these  testimonies,  as  Mr.  Abbott  is  one 
of  the  representative,  rampant  infidels  of  our  country,  and  as 
it  is  a  good  summing  up  of  the  work  of  American  infidelity : 
"The  Christian  Intelligencer  \i2i?,  culled  from  recent  publications 
bearing  upon  the  influence  of  infidelity  on  the  morals  of  a 
people,  going  to  show  that  the  religion  of  the  Bible  is  the  sub- 
structure upon  which  all  true  morality  and  good  citizenship 
depend."    Here  is  a  significant  testimony.     Mr.  Abbott,  edi- 
tor of  the  Index,  one  of  the  most  unequivocal  as  well  as  the 
ablest  of  the  infidel  (he  would  call  it  free-religionist)  journals, 
in  retiring  from  the  "liberal"  organization,  says:   "For  two 
years  and  a  half  the  very  worst  elements  in  society  (outside 
of  the  distinctively  criminal  classes;  have  been  seizing  more 
and  more  the  control  of  organized  liberal  movements;  and 
their  ambition  is  to  seize  them  all  at  last.     I  look  about  me 
and  ask:   What  is  to  prevent  their  success?     Nothing  at  all, 
in  the  present  apathy  of  the  liberals  at  large.     Healthy  organ- 
ization has  come  to  a  complete  stand-still ;  unhealthy  organiz- 


46  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

ations  are  springing  up  like  mushrooms  all  over  the  land.  To 
go  into  the  work  of  liberal  organization  to-day,  without  the 
keen  vigilance  of  which  I  see  no  sign  at  present,  would  be  to 
play  directly  into  the  hands  of  a  party  that  is  an  incarnate 
moral  pestilence." 

Well  did  the  great  American  historian,  Mr.  Bancroft,  who 
is  not  chargeable  with  an  overload  of  ''orthodoxy,"  say  of  in- 
fidelity: "Good  government  is  not  the  creation  of  skepticism. 
Her  garments  are  red  with  blood,  and  rum  is  her  delight;  her 
despair  may  stimulate  to  voluptuousness  and  revenge;  she 
never  kindled  with  the  disinterested  love  to  men." — Hist. 
U^iited  States,  Vol.  V.,  pp.  22,  24.  Yet  infidelity  is  so  horrified 
at  the  "horrible"  ethics  of  the  Old  Testament! 

We  have  seen,  in  this  chapter,  that  the  Old  Testament 
holds  out,  as  a  basis  of  ethics,  the  moral  nature  of  man  and 
the  need  of  recognizing,  resisting,  the  reality  of  sin  ;  and  that 
infidelity  scouts  the  very  idea  of  such  ethics.  But,  generally, 
the  heathen,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  held  the  immoral  doc- 
trines of  infidels.  Some  heathen  had  better  ideas  of  morals 
than  have  infidel  writers.  This  was  true  of  Greece  and  Rome, 
in  their  better  days.  Meander  said :  '  'A  lie  is  better  than  a  hurt- 
ful truth."  "When  telling  a  lie  will  be  profitable,  let  it  be 
told." — Quoted.  "He  may  lie  who  knows  how  to  do  it  in  a 
suitable  manner." — Quoted  from  Plato.  "There  is  nothing 
decorous  in  truth,  but  when  it  is  profitable;  yea,  sometimes 
truth  is  hurtful  and  lying  is  profitable  to  men." — Quoted  from 
Maximus  Tyrius.  Lucretius  (B.  C.  95),  the  great  father  of 
modern  infidelity,  "evolution,"  etc.,  whom  Tyndall  so  highly 
eulogizes,  and  confesses  died  by  self-murder,  which  was  in 
his  forty-fourth  year,  composed  his  works  "in  the  intervals  of 
his  madness."  Like  infidels  of  to-day,  Lucretius  wrote  to 
"free  man  from  the  superstition  of  religion."  But  the  follow- 
ing testimony  of  Wuttke,  one  of  the  greatest  ethical  writers,  il- 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  47 

lustrates  the  general  position  of  oriental  heathen  nations :  '  'The 
Indians,  the  Brahmins,  and  also  the  Buddhists,  conceived  mor- 
fllity  on  the  basis  of  their  consequently  developed  pantheism, 
essentially  negatively.  All  finite  reality,  and,  above  all, 
that  of  the  human  personality,  is  null,  untrue  and  illegitimate ; 
either  because  with  the  Buddhists  the  essence  of  all  existence 
is  a  general  nullity.  .  .  .  The  moral  goal,  the  highest 
good,  is  not  personal  possession,  but  the  surrender  of  person- 
ality to  the  impersonal,  divine  essence,  or  to  nihility.  There 
is  no  realizing  and  no  shaping  of  a  moral  kingdom  based  on 
personality,  nor  even  a  preserving  of  existing  reality,  but  a 
dissolving  of  the  same." — Eth.^  Vol.  I.,  p.  47. 

If,  then,  in  nothing  else  superior  to  all  heathen  and  infidel 
writers,  the  Old  Testament  deserves  our  profoundest  rever- 
ence for  its  ethical  foundation — the  moral  nature  of  man  and 
the  recognition  of  the  reality  of  sin. 

5.  As  ONE  OF  ITS  BASAL  FACTS  OF  ETHICS,  THE  OlD  TESTA- 
MENT PRESENTS  FOR  THE    MODEL  OF  MAN'S    LIFE  THE  HOLINESS 

OF  God. — That  the  moral  character  of  individuals  and  of  na- 
tions has  invariably  been  like  their  gods  is  well  known  to 
every  one  who  is  famihar  with  history.  Of  this  well-known 
fact  the  reader  may  be  reminded  by  the  worshipers  of  Bac- 
chus, Moloch,  Ashtaroth,  Mars,  Juno,  Jupiter,  etc.,  etc. 
Before  the  degraded  Israelites,  the  Old  Testament  presented 
Jehovah  as  the  model  for  their  lives.  On  their  conformity 
to  this  perfect  model,  the  Old  Testament  revealed  to  them 
that  all  their  prosperity  and  happiness,  individually  and  na- 
tionally, were  dependent.  "Speak  unto  the  congregation  of 
Israel,  and  say  unto  them,  Ye  shall  be  holy:  for  I  am  holy." 
Lev.  xix.  2;  xxi.  8;  i  Sam.  ii.  2;  Ps.  xxii.  3;  cxlv.  17;  Isa. 
vi.  3;  lii.  10;  Job  vi.  10,  et  al.  By  day  and  by  night  Israel 
were  reminded  of  this  holiness  as  their  only  true  standard, 
* 'Blessed  is  the  man  that  walketh  not  in  the  counsel  of  the 


48  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

ungodly,  nor  standeth  in  the  way  of  sinners,  nor  sitteth  in 
the  seat  of  the  scornful.  But  his  delight  is  in  the  law  of  the 
Lord;  and  in  his  law  doth  he  meditate  day  and  night." — Ps. 
i.  I,  2. 

An  essential  reason  for  his  worship  is  that  he  is  holy:  * 'Ex- 
alt ye  the  Lord  our  God,  and  worship  at  his  footstool;  for  he 
is  holy." — Ps.  xcix.  5.  Reminding  Israel  of  what  they  should 
be  in  all  their  works:  "The  Lord  is  righteous  in  all  his  ways, 
and  holy  in  ail  his  works." — Ps.  cxlv.  17.  The  reason  given 
to  Israel  for  their  curse:  "Your  iniquities  have  separated  be- 
tween you  and  your  God,  and  your  sins  have  hidden  his  face 
from  you,  that  he  will  not  hear." — Isa.  xlix.  2;  also,  Isa. 
xlix.  1-15;  Ezek.  xxii.  and  xxiii;  Micah  vi;  Hab.  ii.  and  iii. ; 
Zech.  vii. ;  Mai.  ii.  Inasmuch  as  space  does  not  here  per- 
mit that  these  be  quoted,  please  turn  to  your  Bible  and  pray- 
erfully read  them. 

The  Hebrew  word  generally  used  in  this  connection  is 
tJ^llp — quadosh.     It  and  its  family  are  used  more  than  600 

times  in  the  Old  Testament  to  indicate  moral  'perfection,  trans- 
lated in  our  version  by  such  words  as  "holy,"  "separate," 
'  'sanctify, ' '  '  'sanctuary' ' — from  idea  of  moral  perfection.  Ges- 
enius,  of  Rationalist  school,  defines  t^Hp,  "holy,  sacred; 
sanctus — ayioq  ' ayvo(; — pure,  clean,  free  from  the  defilement 
of  vice,  idolatry,  and  other  impure  and  profane  things;  oppo- 
site is  Cn  jn,  impure,  profane.  In  fixing  the  primitive  sig- 
nification of  this  word,  the  following  are  the  classical  passages : 
Lev.  xi.  43,  sq.,  where,  after  the  law  respecting  unclean  meats, 
it  is  said :  'Ye  shall  not  pollute  yourselves  with  these,  that  ye 
should  be  defiled  therewith.  .  .  .  And  be  ye  holy :  for  I  am 
holy.'  So  Lev.  xix.  2,  20,  26,  where  the  same  formula,  'be  ye 
holy :  for  I  am  holy,'  is  placed  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  a 
section  containmg  various  laws  against  fornication,  adultery, 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  49 

incest,  idolatry,  and  other  like  crimes.  .  .  .  In  a  sense 
somewhat  varied,  it  is  applied  to  God  as  abhorring  ever)- 
kind  of  impurity,  both  physical  and  moral;  as,  also,  the 
avenger  of  right  and  justice.  (Ps.  xxii.  4.)"  There  is  an- 
other word,  in  a  few  instances,  rendered  "holy."  It  is  TDH 
— chasid.  Gesenius  defines  it:  ''Kind,  merciful,  benevolent. 
Ps.  xii.  2;  xviii.  26;  xliii.  i — Of  God,  kind,  merciful,  gra- 
cious."— Ges.  Lex.  Heb.  Julius  Muller  says:  ''The  expres- 
sion used  in  the  Old  Testament  for  God's  holiness — t^  Hp^ 
j^'lp — distinctly  implies  the  denial  of  evil  because  it  repre- 
sents God  as  pure  from  the  defilement  of  evil,  separated  from 
any  communion  with  it.  Hence,  it  is  he  whose  fellowship 
makes  man  holy  —  It^^lpD  niH^  (Lev.  xxi.  8,  15,  23; 
xxii.  9,  32.)  When  Jehovah  appears  as  the  terrible  one,  the 
sight  of  whose  countenance  would  be  death,  he  makes  ar- 
rangements that  the  people  be  not  consumed  before  his  de- 
vouring wrath.  Exod.  xix.  23,  24 — representations  which, 
at  first  sight,  seem  to  refer  not  to  the  moral,  but  to  the  physi- 
cal manifestation  of  God  as  the  almighty  principle  of  nature ; 
but,  it  must  be  remembered,  that  these  manifestations  of  Je- 
hovah clearly  and  obviously  imply  the  guilt  of  the  people." — 
Chr.  Doc.  Sin.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  233.  The  late  great  American 
poet,  Longfellow,  whose  memory  is  yet  fresh  in  our  hearts, 
a  little  while  before  his  death,  well  called  the  following  noble 
lines  of  Thackeray  "a  very  grand  sentence:"  "O  awful,  aw- 
ful Name  of  God!  Light  unbearable!  Mystery  unfathom- 
able !  Vastness  immeasurable !  O  Name  that  God's  people 
did  fear  to  utter!  O  Light  that  God's  prophet  would  have 
perished  had  he  seen !  Who  are  they  who  now  are  so  familiar 
with  it?"  "It  is  a  prominent  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament 
that  there  is  in  God  a  profound  and  living  abhorrence  of  evil; 


50  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

while  the  history  of  Israel  is  thoroughly  penetrated  with  the 
consciousness  that  through  sin  the  nation  is  guilty  before  God." 
Idein^  Ibid.  Knowing  no  God,  infidelity  knows  nothing  of 
his  life  as  the  model  for  ethics.  The  so-called  ethics  of  infi- 
delity leaves  us  like  a  student  or  workman  without  a  model. 
The  model  of  heathenism  are  deities  partaking  of  the  infirm- 
ities and  crimes  of  man.  "The  deities  were  honored  with 
rites  and  sacrifices  of  various  kinds.  .  .  .  The  rites  usee} 
in  their  worship  were  absurd  and  ridiculous,  and  frequently 
cruel  and  obscene."  ' 'Some  nations  proceeded  to  the  enormity 
of  human  sacrifices.  .  .  .  As  to  their  prayers,  they  were 
void  of  piety  and  sense.  .  .  .  It  is  at  least  certain  that 
this  religion  had  not  the  least  influence  towards  exciting  or 
nourishing  solid  and  true  virtue  in  the  minds  of  men.  For 
the  gods  and  goddesses  to  whom  public  homage  was  paid 
exhibited  to  their  worshipers  rather  examples  of  egregious 
crimes  than  of  useful  and  illustrious  virtues.  The  gods,  more- 
over, w^ere  esteemed  superior  to  men  in  power  and  immortal- 
ity; but  in  everything  else  they  were  considered  their  equals." 
"The  divinities,  generally  worshiped,  were  rather  famous  for 
their  vices  than  distinguished  by  virtuous  and  worthy  deeds." 
— Moshcim^s  Eccl.  Hist.,  Fart  /.,  sec.  10-13;  Wuttke's  Eth., 
Vol.  II.,  pp.  85,  ^6.  And  Julius  Muller  sums  up  history: 
"It  is  allowed,  on  all  sides,  that  the  specific  difference  between 
the  religion  of  the  Bible  and  heathenism  is  the  high  moral 
standard  which  the  former  maintains  in  contemplating  the  re- 
lation between  God  and  man,  and  the  prominence  it  gives  to 
God's  holiness.  The  divine  revelations  contained  in  Genesis 
and  Exodus  begin  deeply  to  impress  the  thought  of  God's 
holiness  upon  the  heart  of  man;  and  in  the  fullness  of  their 
realization  in  Jesus  Christ,  this  idea  shines  forth  in  the  perfec- 
tion of  its  clearness.  God  is  absolutely  'the  good' — oayaOoq.''' 
— Chr.  Doc.  Sin.,  Vol  I,  p.  233.    Both  the  Old  and  the  New 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  5 1 

Testament,  as  the  completion  of  ethics  in  man,  present  him 
exactly  like  his  Model  in  holiness.  Not  simply  to  save  man 
from  punishment  is  the  object  of  Old  and  New  Testament 
redemption,  but  to  save  him  also  from  sin.  This  object  is 
summarized  in:  ^'It  doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be: 
but  we  know  that  when  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him." 
— John  iii.  2.  "As  for  me,  I  will  behold  thy  face  in  right- 
eousfiess:  I  shall  be  satisfied  y^htn  I  awake  with  thy  likeness.'^ 
— Ps.  xvii.  15.  The  true^  Christian  could  not  be  satisfied  with 
a  salvation  that  saved  from  punishment  without  saving  from 
sin.  Nothing  less  than  a  spotless  and  perfect  moral— sinless 
— character  and  life  could  satisfy  any  one  in  whom  regenera- 
tion has  awakened  the  hungering  and  the  thirsting  "after 
righteousness." 

Nowhere  in  heathen  ages  or  in  infidelity  does  the  true  end 
of  life  appear.  Here  it  glows  and  sparkles  as  the  sun.  No 
better  than  other  heathenism  is  the  lauded  Vedas — lauded  by 
infidels.  Says  Prof.  Whitney:  "The  attainment  of  wealth 
and  power  is  aimed  at,  the  downfall  of  enemies,  the  removal 
of  petty  pests,  and  so  on,  even  down  to  the  growth  of  hair 
and  bald  pates."  —  Orient.  Ling.  Studies,  Vol.  I..,  p.  21.  Of  the 
people  of  the  Vedas:  "The  object  for  which  such  a  people 
strive  is  booty.  It  is  with  no  evil  conscience  that  they  wage 
this  predatory  warfare ;  they  ask  of  their  gods  success  in  it 
with  the  utmost  simplicity  and  good  faith ;  their  prayers  are, 
ever,  not  for  their  peaceful  preservation  and  increase  only  of 
their  present  possessions,  but  that  they  may  be  enriched  with 
the  spoils  of  their  enemies.  Their  names  for  the  combat, 
the  similes  they  derive  from  it,  the  whole  strain  in  which  it 
is  mentioned  in  their  hymns,  witness  to  the  thorough  zest  and 
spirit  in  which  they  fought." — Idetn,  pp.  26,  etc.,  42,  50,  52, 
219;  also,  Co77ip.  Hist.  Relig.,  by  Moffat,  Vol.  /.,  //.  193,  194. 
Prof.  W.    Robertson  Smith,  who  can  not  be  charged  with 


52  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

''orthodoxy,"  says:  ''The  true  distinction  of  Israel's  religion 
lies  in  the  character  of  the  Deity  who  made  himself  person- 
ally known  to  his  people,  and  demands  of  them  a  life  con- 
formed to  his  spiritual  character  as  a  righteous  and  forgiving 
God."— 77^^  Old  Test,  in  Jewish  Church,  p.  56,  of  ''Seaside 
Lib:'  Ed 

From  the  preceding  investigation,  we  are  led  to  the  con- 
clusion that  God,  as  a  God  of  holiness  for  the  iJiodel  of  Old 
Testament  life,  presents  Old  Testament  Ethics  as  incompar- 
ably pure  and  spotless  and,  beyond  all  possible  calculation, 
elevating  to  individuals  and  nations. 

6.  As  A  BASIS  TO  ETHICS  THE  OlD  TESTAMENT  TEACHES 
THE  DOCTRINE  OF    FUTURE  REWARDS  AND    PUNISHMENTS. — As 

to  the  influence  of  this  doctrine  on  individual  and  national 
life,  it  is  so  obvious  that  infidels  readily  concede  that  it  is  of 
incalculable  help  to  both.  The  following  are  but  a  few  of 
the  many  infidel  concessions.  Montesquieu  says  :  "The  idea 
of  a  place  of  future  rewards  and  punishments  necessarily  im- 
ports that  there  is  a  place  of  future  rewards  and  punishments, 
and  that  where  the  people  hope  for  the  one  without  fear  of 
the  other  civil  laws  have  no  force. " — Spirit  of  Laws.  Boling- 
broke,  the  "chief  English  infidel  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
says:  "The  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punishments  has 
a  great  tendency  to  enforce  civil  laws  and  restrain  the  vices 
of  men." — Shedd s  Hist.  Chr.  Doc,  Vol.  L.,p.  200.  Hume, 
in  whom  English  Deism  reached  its  climax,  said:  "Disbelief 
in  futurity  lessens,  in  a  great  measure,  the  ties  of  morality, 
and  may  be  supposed,  for  that  reason,  to  be  pernicious  to 
civil  society." — Bates'  Ency.  III., p.  483  ;  Hume's  Essays,  Vol. 
II., p.  143.  Alluding  to  these  doctrines.  Dr.  Draper  says: 
"From  these  considerations  there  arises  an  inducement  to  five 
a  virtuous  life." — Intellectual  Develop,  of  Europe,  p.  539. 
Buckle  says:     "The  question  whether  he  may  or  may  not 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  53 

commit  a  crime  depends  .  .  .  upon  the  fear  of  the  law, 
a  dread  of  penalties  held  out  by  religion." — Hist.  Civ.  in  Eng., 
Vol.  I.,  p.  18.  Leckysays:  "If  men  introduce  the  notion 
of  infinite  punishments  and  infinite  rewards  distributed  by  an 
omniscient  Judge,  they  can  undoubtedly  supply  stronger 
reasons  for  practicing  virtue  than  can  be  found  for  practicing 
vice." — Hist.  Europ.  Mor.  Vol.  7., //.  15,  122.  In  the  same 
connection,  Lecky  says  :  "In  the  first  place,  a  well-ordered 
system  of  threats  and  punishments  marks  out  the  path  of  vir- 
tue with  a  distinctness  of  definition  it  could  scarcely  have 
otherwise  attained.  In  the  next  place,  it  often  happens  that 
when  the  mind  is  swayed  by  a  conflict  of  motives  the  expec- 
tation of  rewards  and  punishments  will  so  reinforce  or  support 
the  virtuou^motives  as  to  secure  the  victory." 

Of  course,  infidel  ethics  has  nothing  of  the  kind.  It  seeks 
to  kick  these  great  pillars  from  under  ethics.  Hence,  Benja- 
min Franklin,  in  advising  Tom  Paine  not  to  publish  his  "Age 
of  Reason,"  wrote:  "Think  how  great  a  portion  of  men 
and  women  .  .  .  who  have  need  of  the  motives  of  re- 
ligion to  restrain  them  from  vice.  ...  I  would  advise 
you,  therefore,  not  to  attempt  unchaining  the  tiger,  but  to 
burn  this  piece  before  it  is  seen  by  another  person.  .  .  . 
If  men  are  so  wicked  with  rehgion,  what  would  they  be  with- 
out it." — Life  and  Writiiigs  of  Eranklin,  Vol.  X.,  pp.  282,  283. 

What  a  pity  for  American  morals  -  and  his  own,  too — that 
Paine  did  not  take  Franklin's  advice  and  burn  his  poisonous 
work,  and  not  "unchain  the  tiger"  of  immorality  and  pas- 
sion !  But,  as  if  the  tiger  was  not  sufficiently  unchained  and 
the  life  sufficiently  poisoned,  others  continue  Paine' s  work. 

Would  that  they  would  act  as  wisely  as  Voltaire  did  :  '  'One 
day  D'Alembert  and  Condorcet,  when  dining  with  Voltaire, 
proposed  to  converse  on  Atheism ;  but  he  stopped  them  at 
once.      'Wait,'  said  he,  'till  my  servants  have  withdrawn;  I 


54  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.- 

do  not  wish  to  have  my  throat  cut  to-night.'  " — Ency.  III.,  by 
Bates,  p.  483. 

Only  such  as  the  frivolous  Epicureans,  and  but  few  of  them, 
have  ever  denied  that  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments is  essential  to  morals. — Hume's  Essays,  Vol.  II.,  p. 
143.  They  said  :  "Anxious  concern  as  to  a  future  retribution 
and  a  divine  world-government  are  the  greatest  folly;  our 
thinking  and  striving  should  regard  only  this  life." — IVtiHke^s 
Eth.,  Vol.  I,  p.  128.  Such  are  the  sentiments  of  Ingersoll, 
Underwood,  etc.  These  Epicureans  contributed  a  large  share 
of  the  influences  that  destroyed  the  civilization  of  their  age. 
So  the  modern  Epicureans  are  doing.  Hence,  Communism, 
etc. 

Theodore  Parker  expressed  the  philosophy  of  life  when  he 
said:  "If  to-morrow  I  perish  utterly,  then  my  fathers  will 
be  to  me  only  as  the  ground  out  of  which  my  bread-corn  is 
grown.  I  shall  care  nothing  for  the  generation  of  mankind. 
I  shall  know  no  higher  law  than  passion.  Morality  will  van- 
ish."— Ser.  7  on  Iheism,  quoted  in  Alger's  Future  Life,  p.  655. 

Against  the  infidel  position — of  no  future — Paul  wrote : 
"Let  us  eat  and  drink;  for  to-morrow  we  die.  Be  not  de- 
ceived: evil  communications  corrupt  good  morals." — i  Cor. 
XV.  32,  33. 

Future  rewards  and  punishments  encourage  in  despondency, 
terrify  the  obstinate,  and,  by  their  being  the  measure  and  ex- 
pression of  the  merit  and  demerit  of  our  actions,  teach  the 
exceeding  righteousness  of  the  law  and  our  responsibility. 
Only  upon  the  merit  and  demerit  of  our  actions  can  they  be 
meted  out;  and,  they  must  adequately  express  the  extent  of 
the  merit  and  demerit  of  these  actions. 

Infidels  must  hold  to  their  denial  of  future  rewards  and 
punishments,  or  give  up  every  infidel  doctrine.  Denying  the 
Lawgiver,   Moral    Governor,   the  Moral  Law,  the  moral  re- 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  55 

sponsibility  of  man,  that  there  is  real  sin  and  guilt,  they  con- 
sistently deny  future  rewards  and  punishments.  But  their 
doctrine  must  be  applied  to  punishment  for  sin  here.  For,  if 
there  is  no  sin,  no  guilt,  the  laws  of  society  and  country  have 
no  more  right  to  punish  the  outlaw  than  to  punish  the  good 
man.  The  most  they  can  do  is  to  confine  the  outlaw,  in  order 
to  keep  him  from  injuring  any  one  or  anything.  Hence,  we 
find  skeptics  naturally  opposed  to  capital  and  other  severe 
punishments — all  punishments,  really.  So  infidel  morals  are 
subversive  of  all  morality  and  civilization. 

The  Old  Testament  teaches  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards 
and  punishments  in,  ^,  the  atonement.  If  no  future,  why 
did  Christ  die  to  save  from  the  eternal  sin  and  its  punishment  ? 
h.  In  the  promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan  to  Abraham.  This 
He  had  never  given  him;  "no,  not  so  much  as  to  set  his  foot 
upon."  Read  and  compare  Gen  xv.  7,  8  with  Acts  vii.  5.  c. 
The  doctrine  was  shown  to  Moses.  Read  Luke  xx.  37.  d.  The 
promise  of  the  everlasting  establishment  of  the  throne  of 
David.  This  is  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  reign  of  the  "Son  of 
David,"  after  the  resurrection.  Read  2  Sam.  vii.  11,  16; 
xxiii.  3,  5,  compared  with  Acts  ii.  25-36;  xv.  15,  16.  e.  In 
the  translation  of  Elijah.  Read  2  Kings  ii.  11.  /.  David's 
consolation  on  the  death  of  his  child.  Read  2  Sam.  xii.  18- 
23 — especially  v.  23.  g.  In  many  other  ways  the  doctrine  of 
future  rewards  and  punishment  appears  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Read  Job  xix.  26,  27;  xxi.  14-30;  Prov.  xiv.  32;  x.  28;  Ps. 
ix.  17;  xxxvii.  37,38;  Ezek.  xxxiii.  8,  9;  Mai.  iv.  i;  Dan. 
xii.  2,  3.  The  Old  Testament  Scriptures  teaching  the  doc- 
trine of  future  rewards  and  punishments  are  too  numerous  to 
here  refer  to.  Let  the  reader  read  especially  the  eleventh 
chapter  of  Hebrews  for  the  faith  of  Old  Testament  saints  in 
the  future, 

7.  Old  Testament  Ethics  is  based  on  humility. — The 


56  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

Hebrew   words   tl^^ — a7ia/i,    7i}C^ — shaphel,  05^ — raphas, 
fcO*l — dakaT\r\*\^ — sliachah,  Vy^ — tsa7ia.   and   their   family, 

TT  TT  ^    -   T 

signify  "to  humble  one's  self,  to  submit;"  ''to  be  afflicted, 
oppressed,  humbled,"  and  in  the  Hith.  to  "humble  oneself, 
to  submit  oneself;"  "oppressed,  afflicted,  wretched,  butevery- 
v;here  with  the  accessory  idea  of  humility,  meekness;  /.  e., 
the  humble,  the  meek,  who  prefer  to  suffer  wrong  rather  than 
to  do  wrong  (Ps.  xxv.  9;  xxxvii.  11;  Ixix.  33),  and  who,  there- 
fore, enjoy  God's  favor  (Ps.  x.  17  ;  xxii.  27  ;  xxxiv,  3  ;  cxlvii: 
6;  Isa.  xxix.  19,)  ct.  al.'' — Ges.  Lex.  Heb.  They  occur  more 
than  one  hundred  and  fifty  times.  They  are  rendered  in  our 
version  by  such  words  as  "gentleness,"  "humble,"  "humil- 
ity," "meek,"  "meekness,"  "afflict,"  "afflicted."  These 
words,  first,  point  to  God's  holiness  and  to  our  unholiness; 
second,  to  the  certainty  of  the  punishment  of  sin;  third,  to 
the  deservedness  of  this  punishment;  fourth,  to  our  repenting 
ourselves  from  sin ;  fifth,  to  our  submitting  to  the  moral  gov- 
ernment of  God ;  sixth,  to  the  finite  nature  of  man  before 
the  infinite  God;  seventh,  to  our  dependence  upon  God  as 
our  Ruler  and  Preserver;  eighth,  to  the  gentleness  of  char- 
acter which  can  but  result  from  such  a  disposition.  Thus, 
humility  is  that  virtue  of  turning  from  wrong  to  right;  not 
thinking  more  highly  of  ourselves  than  we  ought  to  think; 
and  of  purity  and  gentleness  of  character.  This  quality  of 
mind  is  opposed  to  pride,  haughtiness,  vain  presumption  and 
rebellion  against  the  moral  law.*  Humility  is  peculiar  to  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testament  Ethics. 

Denying  that  sin  exists  is  but  the  denial  of  every  virtue 
that  is  caused  by  realizing  and  turning  from  sin ;  yea,  more, 
denving  that  sin  exists  is  cultivating  every  wicked  inclination. 


*One  of  the  most  prevalent  sins  of  our  times,  and  one  wliich   is  es- 
sential to  infidelity,  is  pride  in  "intellectual  powers." 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  57 

Hume,  under  the  irresistible  light  of  the  Bible,  faintly  per- 
ceived what  humility  is  when  he  said:  "Pride  is  a  certain 
satisfaction  in  ourselves.  .  .  .  Humility,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  a  dissatisfaction  with  ourselves  on  account  of  some 
defect  or  infirmity." — Hume's  Essays,  Vol.  II.,  p.  183.  I  say 
"a  faint  idea;"  for  Hume's  ideas  of  morals  did  not  permit 
him  to  see  that  this  ' 'defect  or  infirmity  is  sin" — 'the  ruin  of 
the  soul. 

Infidels  can  have  only  a  faint  idea  of  humility;  and  that 
idea  is  humility  in  only  a  part  of  its  secondary  meaning. 
Hence,  we  hear  and  read  so  much  from  infidels  on  ''be  your- 
self;" "throw  off  superstition"  (meaning  the  Bible  authority); 
"you  need  no  Bible,  reason  alone  is  sufficient;"  "we  have 
outgrown  reHgion;"  "we  are  good  enough  without  an  atone- 
ment;" "be  too  much  of  a  man  to  humble  yourself  for  mercy," 
etc.,  etc. 

"While  the  fundamental  feeling  of  the  heathen  virtue-sage 
is  that  profound  self-consciousness  of  personal  merit  (like  in- 
fidels), the  fundamental  feeling  of  the  Christian  is  the  feeling 
of  grace — accepting,  thankful,  loving  humility." —  Wuttke's 
Eth.,VoL  /.,/.  175. 

Lecky  says :  '  'The  disposition  of  humility  was  pre-eminently ' 
a  Christian  virtue.  .  .  .  It  is  scarcely  possible  for  a  na- 
ture to  be  pervaded  by  a  deep  sentiment  of  humility  without 
this  exercising  a  softening  influence  over  the  whole  character. 
To  transform  a  fierce,  warlike  nature  into  a  gentler  type,  the 
first  essential  is  to  awaken  this  feeling." — Hist.  Europ.  Mor., 
Vol.  II.,  pp.  197,  198. 

Because  of  the  absence  or  presence  of  this  virtue,  as  the 
case  may  be,  admitted  a  virtue  by  Lecky,  "the  first  essential 
to  transform  us  into  a  gentler  type" — the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament  thunder  the  curse  of  a  holy  law  upon  the  proud, 
and  pour  the  oil  of  consolation,  peace  and  joy  into  the  hearts 


58  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

of  the  humble.  ''He  shall  save  the  humble  person." — Job 
xxii.  29.  ''He  forgetteth  not  the  cry  of  the  humble." — Ps. 
ix.  12.  "Lord,  thou  hast  heard  the  cry  of  the  humble." — 
Ps.  X.  17.  "The  humble  shall  hear  thereof  and  be  glad." — 
Ps.  xxxiv.  2.  "The  humble  shall  see  this  and  be  glad:  and 
your  heart  shall  live  that  seek  God." — Ps.  Ixix.  32.  "Better 
is  it  to  be  of  an  humble  spirit  with  the  lowly  than  to  divide 
the  spoil  with  the  strong." — Prov.  xvi.  19.  "A  man's  pride 
shall  bring  him  low :  but  honor  shall  uphold  the  humble  in 
spirit." — Prov.  xxix.  23.  Those  who  are  haughty — proud, 
we  dislike.  They  can  not  learn  the  deeper  lessons  of  life — 
of  the  soul.  No  really  proud  man  was  ever  at  the  throne  of 
God's  mercy — at  the  foot  of  his  cross;  at  the  table  of  his 
blessings.  This  is  one  of  the  secrets  of  so  many  poor  sinners 
making  "shipwreck  of  their  souls"  upon  the  shoals  of  infidel- 
ity. To  them  the  Bible  is  a  dark  thing,  and  Christ  "a  root 
out  of  dry  ground,  a  rock  of  offense."  To  them  preaching  is 
"foolishness;"  while  a  caricature  upon  the  Holy  Book  is  "a 
rich  thing."  The  man  who  never  studied  the  Bible  a  week 
can,  by  the  help  of  pride,  as  dogmatically  pronounce  it  false  as 
the  Pope  ever  pronounced  a  superstition  true.  Jesus  invites 
only  those  who  can  learn.  "Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor 
and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.  .  .  .  Learn 
of  me." — Matt.  xi.  28,  29.  "The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  in- 
struction of  wisdom;  and  before  honor  is  humiHty." — Prov. 
XV.  33;  Prov.  xxii.  4.  "Seek  ye  the  Lord,  all  ye  meek  of 
the  earth." — Zeph.  ii.  3.  "For  thus  saith  the  high  and  lofty 
One  that  inhabiteth  eternity,  whose  name  is  Holy;  I  dwell  in 
the  high  and  holy  place,  with  him  also  that  is  of  a  coiitrite  and 
humble  spirit.''^ — Isa.  Ivii.  15.  Would  that  the  doubting  reader, 
like  doubting  Thomas,  would  find  rest  from  the  stormy  and 
shoreless  ocean  of  doubt  by  letting  these  sweet  calls  of  mercy 
come  home  to  his  heart !     We  may,  then,  conclude  this  point 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  59 

by  stating  that,  in  making  humility  an  essential  to  ethics,  the 
Old  Testament  presents  the  highest  ethics. 
8.  The  Old  Testament  presents  repentance  from  sin 

AS  A   basis  to   ethics. 

From  Old  Testament  Ethics,  in  the  Moral  Law  Maker,  gov- 
ernment. Governor  and  Judge;  in  man's  being  responsible  to 
these;  in  his  being  a  sinner,  comes  the  duty  and  necessity  of 
repentance.  In  the  fifty-first  Psalm  the  reader  has  the  Old  Test- 
ament doctrine  of  repentance.  He  will  there  see  that  it  con- 
sists of,  first,  deep  sorrow  and  pain  for  sin;  ''the  bones  which 
thou  hast  broken" — an  expression  denoting  deep  pain  and  sor- 
row. Second.  That  it  consists  of  a  true  sense  of  the  heinousness 
of  sin.  'Tor  I  acknowledge  my  transgressions :  and  my  sin  is 
ever  before  me."  By  day  and  by  night  the  true  penitent  is 
troubled  with  the  fearful  sight  of  his  sin.  His  heart  with  grief 
bursts  out  in  its  confession.  Third.  God's  awful  nature  oi  holi- 
7iess  is  by  the  Spirit  so  impressed  upon  the  sinner  that  he  is 
brought  to  the  true  sense  of  sin,  and  attributes  his  trouble  to  this 
awakening — "the  bones  which  thou  hast  broken."  Fourth. 
True  repentance  is  towards  God.  As  rebellion  against  law  is 
in  reality  rebellion  against  its  maker  and  authority;  inasnmch  as 
God  is  the  Lawgiver  and  Authority  of  the  moral  law,  all  sin- 
rebellion — is  against  him.  We  may  trespass  on  each  other's 
rights;  but,  strictly  speaking,  we  can  sin  against  only  God. 
"Against  thee  only  have  I  sinned,  and  done  this  evil  in  thy 
sight."  The  New  simply  reiterates  the  Old  in  preaching  "re- 
pentance towards  6^£7i."  (Acts  XX.  21.)  The  Hebrew  word 
for  repent  is  DH^ — nachain.  It  means  "to  pant,  to  sigh,  to 
groan,  to  lament,  to  grieve.  ...  In  regard  to  one's  own 
doings,  to  grieve;  hence,  to  repent.  Often  one  who  repents 
grieves  for  the  evil  he  has  brought  upon  another." — Ges.  Lex. 
Heb.  See  illustrations  of  its  use  in  Job  xlii.  1-6;  Jer.  viii.  6; 
xxxi.  19.     Of  course,  the  other  uses  of  the  word  belong  to 


6o  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

another  subject.  There  is  another  word  rendered  repent, 
^)^ — shiibh;  but  that  more  properly  means  to  ''turn  back, 
return." — Ges.  Lex.  Hcb.;  Harpet''' s Hcb.  Vocab.,  /.  14;  Fuerst, 
Young,  etc.  It  occurs  in  more  than  one  hundred  places  in 
the  Old  Testament,  as  rendered  by  our  version  "turn," 
though,  generally,  with  the  implied  idea  of  repentance.  Ju- 
lius Muller  says:  ''Repentance  is  not  only  a  passive  feeling, 
but  an  inward  act;  not  a  mere  verdict  of  conscience,  but  an 
act  of  the  will.  It  differs  from  the  bare  consciousness  of 
guilt  by  a  free  surrender  to  this  inward  punishment.  Repent- 
ance is  an  element  in  the  work  of  salvation,  a  step  in  the  way 
back  to  God."— C7/r.  JDoc.  Sin.,  Vol.  /.,/.  213.  See  Ps.  51. 
Shakespeare  says : 

"O  wretched  state !     O  Bosom  black  as  Death ! 
O  limed  soul,  that,  struggling  to  h&free, 
Art  more  engaged  !     Help,  angels  make  assay ! 
Bow,  stubborn  knees!  and  heart,  with  strings  of  steel, 
Be  soft  as  sinews  of  the  new-bom  babe. 
For  Heaven  doth  know,  so  shall  the  world  perceive, 
That  I  have  turned  away  my  former  self; 
So  will  I  those  that  kept  me  company." 

The  necessity  to  ethics  of  such  a  change  he  well  expresses ; 

"Many  sorrows : 
Conscious  Remorse  and  Anguish  must  be  felt, 
To  curb  Desire;  to  break  the  stubborn  Will; 
And  work  a  second  nature  in  the  Soul, 
Ere  Virtue  can  resume  the  place  she  lost." 

Knowing  nothing  of  moral  government,  of  morality,  of 
moral  responsibility,  etc.,  of  the  reality  of  sin,  infidelity  can 
know  nothing  of  repentance  from  sin.  Believing,  as  Theo- 
dore Parker,  that  "every  fall  is  a  fall  upward,"  that  "sin 
can  not  make  an  indelible  mark  on  the  soul;"  and,  as  Moles- 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  6 1 

schott  says,  that  ''to  comprehend  everything  involves  also  the 
justifying  of  everything"  (the  reader  please  here  turn  back  to 
"4"  of  this  chapter,  p.  31),  infidelity  can,  if  it  knows  any 
kind  of  repentance,  know  only  the  repentance  because  the 
cup  of  sin  may  not  be  full. 

With  a  few  heathen,  there  may  have  been  a  dim  knowledge 
of  repentance.  But,  as  Harless  says:  "We  can  by  no  means 
assert  that  the  pre-Christian  world  had,  by  virtue  of  conscience, 
a  just  and  universal  perception  that  their  whole  condition  was 
blamable . ' ' — Sys.  Chr.  Eth .,  p.  75. 

"We  find  not  the  least  trace  of  the  natural  corruption  of 
mankind;  there  is  admitted,  as  was  the  case  in  Aristotle's 
system,  simply  a  difference  between  the  rude  multitude,  little 
inclined  to,  and  little  capable  of,  the  good,  and  the  more  hap- 
pily gifted  ones— the  latter  being,  of  course,  the  Stoics  them- 
selves; and  it  is  given  as  an  essential  characteristic  of  a  sage, 
never  to  repent  of  anything.  .  .  .  Epictetus  and  Marcus 
Aurelius"  ....  prayed,  but  "there  is  no  trace  of  peni- 
tential prayer;  but,  for  the  most  part,  only  the  spirit  of  the 
Pharisee's  prayer.  ...  It  is,  in  fact,  not  impossible  that 
in  the  more  religious  tendency  of  later  Stoicism,  there  is  a  de- 
gree of  influence  from  Christianity." — Wuttke' s  Eth.,  Vol.  /., 
/.  136. 

Lecky,  an  infidel,  says:  "Repentance  for  past  sin  has  ab- 
solutely no  place,  nor  do  the  ancients  appear  to  have  ever 
realized  the  purifynig  and  spiritualizing  influence  of  it  upon 
the  character." — Hist.  Europ.  Mor.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  205.  We 
must,  therefore,  conclude  that  in  making  repentance  an  essen- 
tial basis  of  ethics,  the  Old  Testament  is  of  incomparable 
purity. 

9.  Regeneration  is  a  foundation  of  Old  Testament 
Ethics. — The  great  German  poet,  Goethe,  when  about  eighty 
years  old,  confessed  that  he  could  not  remember  being  happy, 


62  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

even  for  a  few  weeks  together;  and  that  when  he  wished  to 
feel  comfortable,  he  had  to  vail  his  self-consciousness.  The 
following  is  the  closing  sentence  of  his  biography:  "Child!! 
child!  no  more.  The  course  of  time,  lashed,  as  it  were,  by 
invisible  spirits,  hurries  on  the  light  car  of  our  destiny;  and 
all  that  we  can  do  is,  in  cool  self-possession,  to  hold  the  reins 
with  a  firm  hand,  and  to  guide  the  wheels,  now  to  the  left, 
now  to  the  right;  a  stone  here,  a  precipice  there.  Whither 
are  we  hurrying;  who  can  tell?  And  who  can  indeed  re- 
member the  point  from  which  we  started?" 

In  his  oration  on  his  brother's  death,  Robert  Ingersoll  ut- 
tered the  sad  wail:  "Life  is  a  narrow  vale  between  the  cold 
and  barren  peaks  of  two  eternities.  We  strive  in  vain  to  look 
beyond  the  heights.  We  cry  aloud,  and  the  only  answer  is 
the  echo  of  our  wailing."  "No  matter  if  its  (life)  every  hour 
is  rich  with  love,  and  every  moment  jeweled  with  a  joy,  it 
will,  at  its  close,  become  a  tragedy  as  sad,  and  deep,  and 
dark,  as  can  be  woven  of  the  warp  and  woof  of  mystery  and 
death."  "A  wreck  must  mark,  at  last,  the  end  of  each  and 
every  life." 

The  cultivated  pen  of  poor  Byron,  a  skeptic,  never  sketched 
anything  in  truer  colors  than  he  did  the  depravity  of  the  human 
heart.  In  this  sketch  is  the  explanation  of  the  bitter  wail 
and  despair  of  life,  as  Ingersoll  and  others  have  uttered  it. 
He  says : 

"Our  life  is  a  false  nature ;  'tis  not  in 
The  harmony  of  things,  this  hard  decree, 
This  uneradicable  taint  of  sin, 
This  boundless  Upas,  this  all-blasting  tree 
Whose  roots  is  earth,  whose  leaves  and  branches  be 
The  skies  which  rain  their  plagues  on  me  like  dew, 
Disease,  death,  bondage ;  all  the  woes  we  see, 
And  worse,  the  woes  we  see  not,  which  thrill  through 
The  immedicable  soul    with  heart-aches  ever  new." 


OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICAT  63 

Or  as  Byron  paints  our  sinful  lives : 
**My  days  are  as  the  yellow-leaf; 
The  flower,  the  fruit  of  love  are  gone, 
The  worm,  the  canker  and  the  grief  are  mine  alone." 

For  the  lone,  morally  shipwrecked  soul,  on  life's  ocean, 
thus  lifting  its  moans  and  wails  above  the  storm,  infidelity  and 
heathenism  have  no  rescue.  "The  philosopher  could,  like 
Cicero,  bear  testimony  to  the  universal  depravity  which  sur- 
rounded man  from  his  youth  up  (Tuscul.  iii,  i),  but  philoso- 
phy was  incapable  of  arresting  the  ever-increasing  stream  of 
licentiousness.  Philosophy  was  obliged  to  confess  that  we, 
while  our  spirit  is  sick,  pronounce  judgment  upon  ourselves 
{^animus  de  se  ipse  turn  judical,  quum  id  ipsum,  quo  judicatory 
(zgrotef) ;  but  just  as  strongly,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  med- 
icine which  she  offered  found  no  acceptance  {^animi  medicina 
nee  tam  desiderata,  antequam  inventa,  nee  tarn  culta,  posteaqua?fi 
cognita,  nee  tam  7nultis  grata  et  probata,  pluribus  ctiam  suspecta 
et  invisa.^ — Tus.  iii.  1)  that  the  philosophers  did  not  even 
apply  to  themselves.  .  .  .  The  effect  of  the  whole  Grecian 
philosophy  was  to  weaken  the  conscience,  owing  to  its  ig- 
norance of  the  source  and  magnitude  of  the  evil,  owing  to 
its  delusion  concerning  the  means  of  eradicating  it." — Sys. 
Chr.  Eth,,  by  Harless,  pp.  94,  95. 

Wuttke  says  that  Aristotle,  in  whom  Grecian  and  heathen 
ethics  attained  their  highest  perfection,  "renounced  all  hope 
of  radically  bettering  the  unreceptive  multitude.  .  .  . 
He  contented  himself  with  keeping  them  in  check." — Eth., 
Vol.  I.,  p.  114. 

Lecky  says:  "Philosophy  was  altogether  impotent  to  re- 
generate mankind.  .  .  .  There  is  a  remarkable  passage 
in  Celsus  on  the  impossibility  (Celsus  was  an  infidel)  of  re- 
storing a  nature  once  thoroughly  depraved." — Hist.  Europ. 
Mor.,VoL  IL,p.  4. 


64  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

In  this  condition,  the  heathen  world  was  ready  to  snatch 
at  anything  that  seemed  to  offer  deliverance  or  relief.  To 
this  is  due,  as  Prof.  Moffat  says,  ''The  power  of  Buddhism, 
whereby  it  took  hold  on  the  vast  population,  was  the  promise 
it  held  forth  of  deliverance  from  all  the  ills  of  human  life. 
.  .  .  A  negative  religion,  it  sought  its  end,  not  by  doing 
good,  but  by  shunning  the  risk  of  suffering" — by  annihilation 
or  becoming  nothing. — Comp.  Hist.  Relig.,  by  Mofat,  Pari  /., 
/.  215. 

But  the  very  design  of  the  Old  Testament  is  to  regenerate 
and  rescue  men  from  this  terrible  moral  shipwreck  and  night 
of  despair.  Not  by  offering  annihilation,  as  does  Buddhism; 
not  by  rendering  man  unfeeling  as  a  stone,  as  does  Stoicism, 
does  the  Old  Testament  propose  the  rescue.  Recognizing 
sin,  sinful  pollution,  the  galling  chain  and  the  darkness  of 
sin  as  man's  woe,  the  Old  Testament  comes  with  the  only 
hope  and  rescue  :  "A  new  heart  will  I  also  give  you,  and  a 
new  Spirit  will  I  put  within  you,  and  I  will  take  away  the 
stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit 
within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes." — Ezek. 
xxxvi.  26,  27.  "Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God;  and 
renew  a  right  spirit  within  me." — Ps.  li.  10.  Old  Testament 
Ethics  makes  the  tree  good  that  the  fruit  may  be  good. 
Therefore  it  says:  ''Wash  ye,  make  you  clean;  put  away 
the  evil  of  your  doings  from  before  mine  eyes)  representing 
the  All-searching  Eye  of  the  Holy  One  looking  upon  sin  in 
order  to  judge);  cease  to  do  evil;  learn  to  do  well;  seek 
judgment,  relieve  the  oppressed,  judge  the  fatherless,  plead 
for  the  widow."  Then  as  encouragement :  "Come  now,  let 
us  reason  together,  saith  the  Lord :  though  your  sins  be  as 
scarlet,  they  shall  be  as  white  as  snow ;  though  they  be  red 
like  crimson,  they  shall  be  as  wool." — Isa.  i.  16-18.  Thus  . 
changed,    every   motive   to   virtue   finds   obedient   response 


OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  65 

within  the  bosom.  Of  this  change,  as  effected  by  Christian- 
ity, and,  as  we  see,  in  Old  Testament  Ethics,  Lecky,  an  able 
infidel,  writes :  *'The  transformation  of  such  a  nature,  which 
was  continually  effected  by  Christianity,  was  confessedly  be- 
yond the  power  of  philosophy." — Hist.  Europ.  Mor.  Vol.  II., 
p.  4.  *  We  may,  therefore,  say  that  Old  Testament  Ethics 
brings  light  into  darkened  hearts ;  for  moral  pollution  gives 
moral  purity;  for  despair  gives  hope;  for  moral  slavery, 
moral  freedom;  for  heavy,  gloomy  hearts,  light  and  happy 
hearts;  for  separation  and  exile  from  the  Father's  house,  a 
washed,  best-robed  prodigal,  with  the  "ring  on  his  finger," 
again  at  the  Father's  table,  eating  the  ''fatted  calf,"  drinking 
in  the  Father's  love. 

10.  The  Old  Testament  presents  faith  as  funda- 
mental TO  ethics. — The  Hebrew  for  believe  is  f^K — aman. 
It  means  ''to  prop,  to  stay,  to  support,"  as  "to  bear  or  carry 
a  child;"  "to  stay  oneself,  to  be  stayed  up,  supported;  hence, 
to  be  firm,  stable,  such  as  one  may  safely  lean  upon,  meta- 
phorically, to  be  faithful. " — Ges.  Lex.  Heb.  In  twenty-eight 
instances  it  is  rendered  "faithful;"  in  forty-five,  "beheve;" 
in  eighteen,  "faithfulness;"  in  two,  "faith;"  and  in  two, 
"steadfast."  In  this  use  of  the  word — and  its  family — we 
have  indicated  moral  character.  See  Num.  xii.  7 ;  Deut.  vii. 
9;  I  Sam.  ii.  35;  Neh.  ix.  8;  xiii.  13;  Ps.  Ixxxix.  37;  ci. 
6;  Prov.  xi.  13;  Isa.  i.  21;  viii.  2;  Jer.  xlii.  5;  Prov.  xxviii. 
20,  where  we  have  it  rendered  "faithful."  See  Gen.  xv.  6; 
Num.  XX.  12;  Ps.  xxvii.  13;  cvi.  12;  cvi.  24;  Isa.  liii.  i. 
"And  he  said,  I  will  hide  my  face  from  them,  I  will  see  what 
their  end  shall  be  :  for  they  are  a  very  froward  generation, 
children  in  whom  is  no  (p,!DK — einun — literally,  faithfulness) 
faith." — Deut.  xxxii.  20.  The  adjectives  "steadfast,"  "faith- 
ful," etc.,  being  from  the  verb  which  means  "to  stay,"  "to 


66  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

prop,"  ''to  support,"  evidently  point  to  that  quality  of  char- 
acter in  man  which  entitles  him  to  be  regarded  as  morally 
reliable.  ''Faith  is  designated  in  Scripture  by  the  same  ex- 
pression with  fidelity,  is  the  loving  response  to  God's  fidelity 
to  us,  and  an  expression  of  our  fidelity  toward  the  faithful 
God,  is  a  high  moral  acquirement.  .  .  .  All  humility 
rests  on  faith,  and  is  also  obedience."  "Trusting  in  God 
(that  is,  in  all  his  commands,  requirements,  leadings,  prom- 
ises— his  glorious  character)  is  faith,  love  and  hope  at  the 
same  time ;  ...  it  is  simply  the  germ  of  that  threefold 
life  that  is  antecedent  to  all  actual  moral  life.  .  .  .  Only 
the  absolutely  good — the  divine,  is  free  from  all  doubt." — 
Wiittkc's  Eth.^  Vol.  II.,  pp.  298,  174.  "Hence,  the  moral 
aive  of  God — the  true  reverence  for  God,  is  the  beginning  of 
all  wisdom  and  the  condition  of  all  morality.  (Deut.  v.  29  ; 
vi.  2j  X.  20;  Prov.  i.  7;  viii.  13;  ix.  10;  xv.  33;  xvi.  6; 
Ps.  cxi.  10;  cxii.  7;  Job  xxviii.  28;  2  Cor.  vii.  i.)  Only 
those  who  fear  the  Lord  trust  in  the  Lord  (Ps.  cxv.  11);  for 
only  the  holy  God  gives  surety  for  his  love  and  truthfulness ; 
not  to  fear  God  involves  being  godless  (Prov.  i.  29;  Rom. 
iii.  18);  and  piety  is  synonymous  with  the  fear  of  God.  (Acts 
ix.  13;  Eph.  V.  21  ;  2  Cor.  vii.  i.)  The  reference  is  not  to 
this  pious  dread  of  the  holy  God,  but  to  that  mere  servile  fear 
which  is  at  bottom  hatred,  when  St.  John  says  :  'There  is  no 
fear  in  love,  but  perfect  love  casteth  out  fear.'  ...  (i 
John  iv.  18.)  The  true  fear  of  God  is  closely  allied  to  the 
love  of  God."— ^M.,F^/.  11, p.  173. 

Inasmuch  as  the  relation  of  faith  to  ethics  is  so  important, 
so  little  understood,  so  much  assailed  by  skeptics,  and,  as  it 
is  fundamental  to  Old  Testament  Ethics — the  New,  too — 
though  it  is  a  little  diffuse  in  style,  I  will  here  insert  my  ser- 
mon on  the  subject. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  67 

WHY  DAMNED  FOR  NOT  BELIEVING. 

«*An  evil  heart  of  unbelief."  "He  that  belimeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." — Heb.  iii.  12; 
Mark  xvi.  16. 

In  as  little  time  as  possible,  I  will  show  why  our  eternal 
destiny  is  dependent  on  belief.  I  propose  to  show  you  that 
belief  is  a  matter  of  moral  or  spiritual  character. 

I.  The  original  words  for  beUef  and  unbelief  designate 
character. 

First.  Let  us  notice  the  words,  in  the  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment, for  believe,  belief.  There  is  one  word  in  the  Greek  for 
faith.  It  ispistis.  It  is  a  noun,  derived  from  the  verb  pisti/o. 
FistisoccuTs  two  hundred  and  forty-two  times  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Our  version  renders  it  ''faith"  in  every  one  of  these 
occurrences  save  three.  One  of  these  three  it  renders  "as- 
surance" (Acts  xvii.  31);  another,  ''belief"  (2  Thess.  ii.  13); 
and  the  other,  by  "fidelity"  (Titus  ii.  10).  For  uniformity, 
principle  and  clearness,  it  should  have  rendered  it  faith  in 
these  three  times. 

Fistuo  occurs  two  hundred  and  forty-three  times.  It  is  ren- 
dered "beUeve,"  or  "belie vest,"  or  "believeth,"  in  nearly 
every  one  of  these  occurrences.  In  the  exceptions  the  same 
idea  is  contained.  Rom.  iii.  2;  i  Cor.  ix.  17 — rendered 
"committed,"  meaning  intrusted,  believed;  also,  Gal.  ii.  7; 
I  Tim.  i.  II ;  Titus  i.  3.  In  pistuo  and  its  noun  being  used 
four  hundred  and  eighty-five  times  in  the  New  Testament  is 
conclusive  evidence  of  its  having  a  prominent  and  clear  moral 
meaning;  for  the  New  Testament  is  a  book  on  sin  and  holi- 
ness It  is  true  that  there  are  two  other  words  in  our  version 
—pitho  and  ^i^/>— rendered  faith ;  but  the  former  means  per- 
suaded and  the  latter  hope;  so  the  adjective  horn pisiis  is,  in 
a  few  cases,  made  a  verb  by  rendering  it  "believe."  (i  Tim. 
iv.  10.)    (This,  of  course,  is  a  blunder  in  rendering.)    Liddell 


6S  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

and  Scott's  Lexicon,  the  standard  of  America  and  of  England, 
thus  defines  pisiuo — the  word  rendered  beHeve :  '  'To  beUeve, 
trust,  trust  in,  put  faith  in,  rely  on  a  person  or  thing;  as,  be- 
lieve my  words,  to  believe  mutually,  to  believe  that,  feel  sure, 
confident  that  a  thing  is  true,  entrusted." 

In  different  words  Greenfield  and  Robinson,  in  their  Lexi- 
cons, likewise  define  the  word.  They,  therefore,  define //V/Zi- 
— the  noun — ''generally  persuasion  of  a  thing,  confidence, 
assurance,  credit,  trust,  pledge,  treaty,  warrant."  From 
classic  Greek  Liddell  and  Scott's  Lexicon  quotes//>//^  as  being 
used  in  making  a  "treaty  by  exchange  of  assurances  and  oaths, 
to  give  assurances,  to  receive  into  friendship,  an  assurance. 
A  means  of  persuasion,  an  argument,  proof  (Plat.  Ph^ed.  70 
B.,  Isoc.  28  B.);  especially,  of  a  moral  nature,  opposite  to  a 
demonstrative  proof "  (Arist.  Rhet.  i,  i,  11). 

Looking  over  these  uses  of  the  word  in  classic  Greek,  we 
see  that  it  denotes  the  sacred  tie  of  trust  in  men  by  which 
contracts,  treaties,  bosom  friends  were  made,  and  the  relations 
of  friends,  family  and  states — everything— sustained.  We 
have  seen  that  the  words  in  the  Hebrew  for  faith  are  used  in 
the  same  way.  As  our  relations  to  each  other  are  moral, 
faith,  upon  which  these  relations  are  based,  is  a  moral  act  of 
the  soul.  We,  therefore,  find  the  Greeks  making  of  this  word 
an  adjective — -pistos — to  designate  the  worthiness  or  unworth- 
iness  of  men.  '^o  pistos  is  defined  by  Liddell  and  Scott — all 
Lexicons  too — "faithful,  trusty,  good-faith,  thought  trusty, 
trustworthy,  to  be  trusty,  credible,  in  a  trustworthy  manner  " 
So  pistecs,  defined  "honesty,"  belongs  to  the  same  family  of 
words.  No  one  can  fail  to  perceive  that  this  whole  family  of 
words  designate  fnoral  character,  unless  he  is  prepared  to  deny 
that  it  is  a  sin  to  not  trust  each  other  and  to  be  unworthy  of 
trust — "dishonest"  ourselves,  and  holding  all  others  to  be  the 
same. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  69 

More  force  Is  thrown  upon  these  words  by  the  words  for 
unbeUef. 

In  the  New  Testament  there  are  five  words  for  unbelief. 
These  are  apithia,  apisteo^  apistia,  apisios,  apitheo.  These  five 
words  are  found  sixty-five  times  in  the  New  Testament.  Apis- 
teo,  apistia,  apistos,  are  of  the  same  family.  They  are  of  the 
family  oi  pistuo  ;  but  are  negatives,  meaning  unbelief  and  dis- 
belief. The  other  two  words— rather  one — are,  "not  per- 
suaded," or  rather  unpersuaded,  and  thus  mean  unbelief  and 
disbelief,  rather  by  implication.  We  will,  therefore,  notice 
only  apisteo,  apistia,  apistos ;  confining  ourselves  to  the  family 
of  words  that  properly  and  primarily  relate  to  belief.  As  the 
words  are  etymologically  negatives  to  the  others,  they  are 
rightly  defined  by  Lexicons  to  mean,  not  to  befieve,  to  disbe- 
lieve; e.g.,  persons  testifying,  testimony,  or  the  like,  to  be 
unfaithful,  unbelief,  disbelief,  unfaithfulness,  unbelieving, 
disbelieving,  passive,  not  be  believed  or  trusted.  They  also 
mean  faithlessness  and  treachery.  (Liddell  and  Scott's, 
Boise's  Lexicon  of  Xenophon;  Robinson  and  Greenfield's 
Lexicons.)  "The  words  are  sometimes,  therefore,  used  to 
signify  disobedience  to  law  or  rule,"  say  Liddell  and  Scott's, 
and  other  Lexicons.  They  have  taken  that  use,  because  a 
faithless,  distrustful  person  has  the  prime  elenwits  of  lawlessness. 

Many  Greek  words  by  their  adoption  into  New  Testament 
use,  have  been  made  technically  Christian. —  Winers'  N.  T. 
Gram.,  /.  35.  The  New  Testament  adoption  of  these  Greek 
words  for  faith,  faithful,  faithfulness;  unbelief,  disbelief,  un- 
faithful, faithlessness,  has  confined  them  exclusively  to  morals 
and  given  their  moral  use  more  than  double  force.  These 
words,  which  designate  our  trust  and  distrust  in  each  other; 
our  faithfulness  and  unfaithfulness,  our  trustworthiness  and 
untrustworthiness — the  very  essence  of  our  character,  the  very 
life,  foundation  and  perpetuity  of  every  institution  of  society. 


70  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

or  its  disintegration  and  ruin,  are  the  words  that  are  used  in 
the  New  Testament  to  designate  our  relation  to  God,  the  Pre- 
server and  moral  Ruler,  and  to  his  word  and  law.  Thus  we 
are  said  to  believe  or  disbeheve  God  and  his  word;  to  be 
faithful  or  unfaithful  to  our  relations  to  him;  to  be  trustworthy 
or  untrustworthy.  A  soul  believes  God  when  it  believes  in 
the  purity  and  holiness  of  his  law,  the  faithfulness  of  God  to 
his  promises,  and  the  certainty  of  the  just  sentence  upon  all 
the  disobedient.  A  soul  is  therefore  regarded  as  faithful  which 
believes  in  God — trying  to  live  out  that  belief,  and  unfaithful 
when  it  does  not;  as  worthy  when  it  believes  and  unworthy 
when  it  does  not  believe.  ''Abraham  believed  God,  and  it 
was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness :  and  he  was  called 
the  Friend  of  God." — James  ii.  23.  "The  unbelieving  shall 
have  their  part  in  the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brim- 
stone."— Rev.  xxi.  8.  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized" — 
believes  and  shows  his  belief  by  his  acting — "shall  be  saved; 
but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  Nothing  is 
clearer  than  that  unbelief  in  or  towards  any  good  person, 
good  government — faithlessness  to  any  obligation — untrust- 
worthiness — is  a  condition  of  heart,  a  quality  of  character. 
Applied  to  our  relation  to  God,  it  is  immeasurably  more  so. 
Hence,  our  text  declares  that  the  heart  of  unbelief  in  or  to- 
wards God  is  an  "m/ heart  of  unbelief;"  and  that  whosoever 
believes  not,  "has  an  evil  heart,"  a  bad  character  in  the  sight 
of  the  infinitely  just  and  holy  God — "shall  be  damned." 
The  words  for  belief  and  unbelief  are,  therefore,  words  that 
point  to  the  moral  condition  of  heart  and  the  quality  of  char- 
acter that  constitute  us  good  or  bad,  Avhether  here  or  here- 
after; that  constitute  our  acceptance  or  rejection  of  good  here 
or  hereafter;  our  weal  or  our  woe  at  the  judgment  and  in  eter- 
nity.    How  solemnly  sliould  these  words,  belief  and  unbe- 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  71 

lief,  ring  in  our  ears;  how  deep  should  they  sink  into  our 
hearts ! 

Reason,  principle  and  experience  prove  that  belief  or  unbelief 
depends  upon  the  moral  condition  of  the  hea^i. 

By  the  word  heart,  as  used  in  religion  and  morals,  theo- 
logians, the  Bible  and  metaphysicians  mean  the  fountain  and 
seat  of  our  moral  nature,  McCosh  says:  "Take  the  distinc- 
tion drawn,  in  some  form  by  most  civilized  languages,  between 
the  head  and  heart.  The  distinction  embodies  a  great  truth. 
Under  the  phrase  'heart'  in  particular  are  covered  powers 
with  wide  diversities  of  function,  such  as  the  conscience, 
the  emotions,  the  will." — Intuitions  of  the  Mind,  p.  60. 

1.  Belief  in  any  fact  or  truth  depends  upon  a  fair  examin- 
ation of  the  evidence  supporting  it.  Evidence  is  indispensa- 
ble to  any  right  belief  But  evidence  is  effectual  only  when 
fairly  weighed.  There  can,  therefore,?  be  no  true  belief  in 
the  absence  of  a  fair  exatnination  of  evidence. 

2.  A  fair  examination  of  the  evidences  of  Christianity  is 
prevented  by  prejudice.  The  word  "prejudice"  is  from  the 
Latin  /^r^— before,  and  judicium — judgment.  It,  therefore, 
means  a  judgment  formed  before  due  examination.  Thus, 
thousands  upon  thousands  who  have  never  read  their  Bible 
through,  who  have  never  thought  sufficiently  upon  Christianity 
to  be  able  to  tell  what  it  is,  have  decided  it  false.  Tom  Paine 
could  write  the  first  part  of  his  "Age  of  Reason"  with  no 
Bible  in  the  house.  Knowing  nothing  of  Jesus,  the  Jews 
decided  he  could  not  be  the  Messiah,  because  they  thought 
no  good  could  come  out  of  Nazareth.  Because  some  men 
are  mean  who  profess  religion,  many  decide  that  all  are  so; 
and  that  religion  is,  therefore,  a  falsehood  and  a  delusion. 

Because  some  women  are  impure,  the  black  in  heart  believe 
all  are  impure.  Such  persons  treat  evidence  as  the  seamen 
who  had  been  sailing  several  days,   almost  dying  for  fresh 


72  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

water,  when  sailing  on  fresh  water.  They  are  soured  on  all 
things  good.  To  them  all  things  good  are  only  traps  and  de- 
lusions, to  catch  the  unwary;  and  he  who  is  not  filled  with 
the  miasma  of  the  marshes  of  skepticism  is  filled  with  fool- 
ishness and  "superstition."  To  say  that  to  such  persons, 
good  in  religion,  or  in  anything  else,  is  hidden  and  sealed,  is 
needless.  To  say  that  to  the  impure  all  things  are  impure,  is 
more  than  needless.  Christianity  says :  "Come  a.nd  see ;  look 
and  live."  Christianity  demands  belief,  because  it  is  true. 
It  demands  a  fair  examination.  It  curses  for  unbelief,  because 
only  the  impure  will  refuse  to  examine  a  good  thing.  It 
curses  for  unbelief,  because  it  curses  the  man  whose  heart  is 
so  soured  against  all  good  that  he  brands  everything  good 
with  the  words  ''delusion,"  ''falsehoods,"  "superstition," 
and  refuses  to  come  and  see,  look  and  live.  If  our  courts 
forbid  a  man  from  judging  as  judge  or  juryman  who  is  pre- 
judiced, how  much  more  shall  Christianity  forbid  any  man 
from  judging  it  when  prejudiced  against  it?  If  our  courts 
forbid  the  prejudiced  from  tarnishing  the  character  of  any  man 
— from  punishing  any  man  as  prejudiced  jurymen  and  judges, 
how  much  more  shall  Christianity  hurl  its  thunderbolts  of  ju- 
dicial wrath  upon  the  head  of  him  who  brands  its  spotless 
character  with  "falsehood,"  "delusion,"  and  "superstition?" 
For  what  is  unbelief  in  Christianity  but  a  Mie/  that  it  is  but 
a  "falsehood,"  a  system  of  "priestcraft,"  a  "delusion"  and 
"superstition?"  And  what  is  this  but  the  judgment  of  pre- 
judiced judges  who  can  not  tell  what  it  is;  who,  in  most  cases, 
have  thus  branded  it  upon  the  hearing  or  reading  of  burlesques 
or  caricatures  upon  it  and  tirades  against  it  by  those  who 
brand  it  as  the  libertine  brands  all  female  virtue  ? 

As  you  indignantly  and  spontaneously  invoke  justice  upon 
the  libertine  who  brands  your  wife  or  daughter  as  impure  be- 
cause he  knows  only  impure  women,  Christianity  indignantly 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  73 

and  spontaneously  pronounces  upon  him  who  dares  brand  it 
a  "falsehood"  and  "superstition,"  because  he  knows  nothing 
better  and  will  not  look  at  anything  better  when  presented  to 
him;  I  say,  Christianity  pronounces  upon  him  the  curse  of  a 
holy  law,  "Whosoever  believes  not  shall  be  damned." 

3.  Pride,  haughtiness  of  heart,  prevents  a  fair  examination 
of  Christianity.  The  man  who  is  too  proud  to  acknowledge 
that  there  is  a  Being  higher  than  himself,  who  made  him,  who 
rules  him,  who  judges  him,  who  preserves  him;  he  who,  as 
the  outlaw,  knows  no  power  above  himself;  he  who  scorns 
the  fact  of  law  and  lawgiver  ruling  him,  punishing  and  reward- 
ing him;  he  who  scorns  to  bow  at  the  shrine  of  the  great  I 
Am  because  he  knows  no  worship  but  his  own  worship — such 
a  man  has  no  heart  to  examine  the  worship  of  any  being  out- 
side of  himself;  such  a  man  casts  the  evidences  of  Christian- 
ity from  him  with  demoniacal  scorn.  If  he  ever  inquires 
where  Jesus  is  to  be  found,  it  is  only  as  cruel  Herod,  to  resist 
him,  to  destroy  him.  If  Christianity  seemed  to  promise  him 
independence  of  rule,  of  law,  of  judgment,  liberty  to  be  a 
"freethinker" — to  think  free  of  all  law  and  responsibility,  i' 
it  promised,  as  the  devil  promised,  that  the  forbidden  fruit  of 
self-rule,  self-worship,  would  exalt  him — "Ye  shall  be  as  gods" 
—  no  doubt  he  would  readily  examine  its  evidences.  Alluding 
to  the  words  of  our  Savior,  Bishop  Wilson  wrote:  "Chris- 
tianity inscribes  on  the  portal  of  her  dominion,  'Whosoever 
shall  not  Receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child  shall 
not  enter  therein.'  Christianity  does  not  profess  to  convince 
the  perverse  and  head-strong ;  to  bring  irresistible  evidence 
to  the  daring  and  profane ;  to  vanquish  the  proud  scorner  and 
afford  evidence  from  which  the  careless  and  perverse  can  not 
possibly  escape.  This  might  go  to  destroy  man's  responsi- 
bility. All  that  Christianity  professes  is  to  propose  such  evi- 
dences as  may  satisfy  the  meek,  the  tractable,  the  candid,  the 


74  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

serious  inquirer." — Bishop  Wilson^ s  Evidejues,  p.  38.  Says 
Lord  Bacon:  ''There  is  no  other  entrance  to  the  kingdom  of 
man,  which  is  founded  in  the  sciences,  than  to  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  into  which  no  one  can  enter  but  in  the  character 
of  a  little  child." — Nov.  Org.,  i,  68.  And  the  late  Prof. 
Greenleaf,  late  Dean  and  Professor  of  Law  in  Harvard  Uni- 
versity, author  of  a  ''Treatise  on  the  Law  of  Evidence" — a 
standard  to  the  legal  profession— says :  "Christianity  must  be 
examined  by  a  mind  free  from  all  pride  of  opinion." — Test, 
of  the  Evangelists,  by  Simon  Greenleaf,  p.  i.  The  man  who 
feels  that  he  would  "rather  go  to  hell  than  believe  in  Chris- 
tianity;" who  decries  all  worship,  but  that  of  himself,  as 
"blind,  servile  ignorance;"  who  says  that  all  true  liberty  is 
freedom  from  the  restraint  of  divine  law,  is  hurled  by  the 
great  Judge  into  the  marshes  of  skepticism  and  disbelief,  to 
drink  its  sickening,  poisoning,  stagnant  waters,  to  breathe  its 
miasma,  to  wander  in  its  fog,  to  wallow  in  its  mire,  to  lie 
down  among  the  slimy,  hideous  serpents  of  tormentmg  doubt 
and  curse  the  day  of  his  birth;  while  ten  thousand  thunders 
roll  their  voices  from  the  great  white  throne  of  justice:  "Who- 
soever believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 

"The  haughty  feet  of  power  shall  fail 
Where  meekness  surely  goes; 
No  cunning  finds  the  key  of  heaven, 
No  strength  its  gates  unclose. 

"Alone  to  guilelessness  and  love 
Those  gates  shall  open  fall: 
The  mind  of  pride  is  nothingness, 
The  child-like  heart  is  all." 

4.  Christianity  demands  that  it  be  examined  in  a  spirit  of 
seriousness.  Any  other  spirit  of  examination  is  wickedness 
— base  unfairness.     Shall  jurymen  be  punished  for  deciding  a 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  75 

case  of  murder  in  a  trifling  spirit — a  spirit  of  ridicule ;  and 
the  sinner  be  left  free  to  judge  Christianity,  eternal  interests, 
with  impunity?  Shall  science  shut  her  doors  in  the  faces  of 
triflers  and  ndiculers,  while  Christianity  admits  them  into  her 
"holy  of  holies?"  Shall  Christianity  alone  be  cast  to  the  rav- 
enous wolves  and  swine  of  triflers  and  scorners  ?  Shall  the 
law  of  our  land  hurl  its  curse  upon  him  who  scorns,  ridicules 
your  character,  who  trifles  with  it  and  slanders  it,  who  believes 
there  is  nothing  good  within  you;  and  shall  not  the  law  of 
him  who  sitteth  upon  the  great  white  throne  hurl  upon  the 
trifler,  the  scorner,  the  slanderer,  the  disbeliever  in  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  and  his  word,  the  terrible,  judicial  curse,  "He  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned?''  The  judgment  of  the  great 
court  of  this  universe  curses  the  man  to-day  as  much  as  the 
wicked  rabble  of  Calvary's  tragedy  who  refused  to  give  Jesus 
— Christianity — a  fair  hearing  that  they  "might  believe." 
Great  truths,  great  causes,  must  be  examined  with  a  spirit  of 
fear  and  trembling,  with  a  spirit  feeling  almost  crushed  by  re- 
sponsibility. Much  more  must  the  all-important  truth  and  cause 
receive  such  an  examination.  And  if  the  trifler  with  these 
earthly  truths  and  causes  must  be  cursed,  doubly  cursed  must 
be  whosoever  never  thinks,  never  thought  of  the  soul's 
eternal  destiny,  of  Christianity  save  as  an  object  of  wit,  ridi- 
cule and  scorn. 

"  Within  this  awful  volume  lies 

The  mystery  of  mysteries ; 
Oh!  happy  they  of  human  race, 

To  whom  our  God  has  given  grace 
To  hear,  to  fear,  to  read,  to  pray, 

To  lift  the  latch,  to  force  the  way; 
But  better  had  they  ne'er  been  born. 

Who  read  to  doubt,  or  read  to  scorn." 

5.  Christianity  demands,  as  indispensable  to  belief  in  the 


76  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

gospel,  that  we  be  willing  to  live  it  when  we  have  decided  it 
true.  Repentance  is  turning  from  sin  to  God  with  a  heart  of 
sorrow  for  sin  and  its  utter  hatred.  No  man  can  embrace 
Christ — his  holy  law,  Godly  life,  his  righteousness — before 
he  is  ready  to  live  right.  A  willing,  loving  heart  to  righteous- 
ness only  can  believe  the  gospel  to  the  salvation  of  the  soul. 
* 'Repent  ye  and  believe  the  gospel"  is  the  order,  and  not 
"believe  ye  the  gospel  and  repent." — Mark  i.  15.  The  Jews 
were  unwilling  to  repent — turn  from  their  sins — and  could  not 
therefore  beheve.  Hence  Jesus  said  to  them,  "Jo^^^  came  in 
the  way  of  righteousness.  ...  Ye  repented  not  .  .  .  that 
ye  might  believe." — Matt.  xxi.  32.  To  the  disbelieving  Jews, 
who  could  one  day  behold  the  miracle  of  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand  and  the  next  say,  ''What  sign  showest  thou  that  we 
may  see  and  believe  ?" — how  shall  we  know  your  doctrines? — 
Jesus  said, '  'If  any  man  will  do" — desire  to  obey  God,  live  right, 
do  the  truth — "his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether 
it  be  of  God." — ^John  vii.  17.  Our  old,  corrupt  opinions, 
corrupt  beliefs,  corrupt  lives,  must  be  denied,  must  be  cruci- 
fied and  buried;  sinful,  proud,  corrupt  nature,  self,  must  be 
crucified  and  buried,  that  we  may  arise  to  new  opinions,  new 
beliefs  and  new  lives.  Proud  self  must  be  humbled  that  God 
may  exalt  us.  By  death  to  our  darkness,  we  arise  into  the 
light  of  God ;  by  death  to  our  corruption  of  belief,  we  arise 
into  the  belief  of  purity;  by  death  to  our  death,  we  arise 
into  our  life;  by  death  to  our  slavery  of  disbelief,  we  arise 
into  the  liberty  of  belief;  by  death  to  our  slavery  to  sin,  we 
arise  into  the  liberty  of  righteousness.  "If  a  man  be  sincerely 
wedded  to  Truth  he  must  make  up  his  mind  to  find  her  a  por- 
tionless virgin,  md  he  must  take  her  for  herself  alone.  The 
contract,  too,  must  be  to  love,  cherish  and  obey  her,  not  only 
until  death,  but  beyond  it;  for  this  is  an  union  that  must  survive 
not  only  death,  but  time,  the  conqueror  of  death. " — Colton.   So 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  77 

Greenleaf,  the  great  authority  on  evidence,  says  that  in  order 
to  beheve,  "there  should  be  a  readiness  on  our  part  to  inves- 
tigate with  candor,  to  follow  the  truth  wherever  it  may  lead 
us,  and  to  submit  without  reserve  or  objection  to  all  the  teach- 
ings of  this  religion,  if  it  be  found  of  divine  origin." — Test. 
Evang.j  p.  I.  Dr.  McCoshsays:  "Argument  may  be  resisted. 
The  conviction  springs  up  naturally,  but  not  necessarily.  Men 
may  overcome  it,  being  led  into  a  labyrinth  of  sophistry  from 
which  they  can  discover  no  outlet,  or  more  frequently  being  har- 
dened by  an  encouraged  pride,  or  sensualized  by  a  course  of 
vice.  .  .  We  see  how  man  is  responsible  for  his  belief  to 
God.  The  argument  being  moral,  .  .  .  there  is  room  for  the 
exercise  of  an  evil  heart  in  rejecting  it,  and,  therefore,  of  a 
candid  spirit  in  falling  in  cheerfully  with  it." — Intuitions  of  the 
Mind,  p.  389.  Hume  acknowledged  that  George  Campbell 
had  defeated  his  argument  against  miracles;  yet  Hume  never 
believed,  and  had  not  so  much  as  the  honor  to  publicly  ac- 
knowledge he  was  wrong.  And,  to-day,  the  work  which 
Hume  acknowledged  the  "Scotch  theologue"  had  exploded,  is 
used  by  Hume's  followers  as  though  it  was  reliable.  See 
"Campbell-Owen  Debate,"  pp.  247,  248,  for  proof.  Huxley 
could  not  believe  in  the  Bible,  but  could  beUeve  in  a  little  sea 
mud  and  dubb  it  "Bathybius,"  as  the  deep  sea  life,  the  explan- 
ation of  life.  Strauss,  Haeckel,  and  skeptics,  together  wor- 
shiped this  "discovery"  as  the  triumph  of  infidelity.  But 
"Bathybius"  was  publicly  buried  in  1876  as  only  a  Httle  mud; 
and  Moses  again  raised  from  the  awful  death  this  "discovery" 
made.  See  "Biology  by  Cook,  Am.  Jour.  Science  and  Arts," 
for  October,  1877.  Voltaire  could  not  believe  Jesus,  but  he 
believed  a  forged  book,  and  published  it  as  "the  most  pre- 
cious gift  for  which  the  West  was  indebted  to  the  East,"  sim- 
ply because  it  helped  destroy  the  Bible. — Science  of  Relig.,  by 
Midler,  p.  20.     Men  who  can  not  believe  that  God  created 


78  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

the  world,  can  believe  that  it  developed  itself;  men  who  can 
not  believe  that  God  created  man,  can  believe  that     . 

''There  was  an  ape  in  the  days  that  were  earliest ; 
Centuries  passed,  and  his  hair  became  curliest; 
Centuries  more  gave  a  thumb  to  his  wrist — 
Then  he  was  a  Man— and  a  Positivist." 

They  cry  to  us : 

"If  you  are  pious  (mild  form  of  insanity), 
Bow  down  and  worship  the  mass  of  humanity. 
Other  religions  are  buried  in  mists, 
We're  our  own  gods,  say  the  Positivists." 

Once,  when  Marshall  Duroc,  an  avowed  infidel,  was  telling 
a  very  improbable  story  and  expressing  his  belief  in  it,  Napo- 
leon remarked:  ''There  are  some  men  who  are  capable  of 
believing  everything  but  the  Bible."  Ruskin,  some  time  ago, 
remarked:  "Professors  Tyndall  and  Huxley  are  of  the  opin- 
ion there  is  no  God,  because  they  have  not  found  him  in  a 
bottle."  Robert  Dale  Owen,  a  leading  American  infidel 
writer,  could  not  believe  in  the  Bible  or  Jesus,  but  he  could 
bow  at  the  shrine  of  "Katy  King,"  and  grow  crazy  when  her 
great  (?)  works  were  exposed  as  trickery.  We  have  plenty  of 
men  who  can  find  little  to  believe  in  Christianity  and  the  ori- 
gin of  the  Bible,  but  who  can  talk  eloquently  upon  the  glo- 
ries (?)  of  Buddhism,  and  upon  the  many  thousand-  years' 
age  of  Chinese  literature — universally  denied  by  all  scholars. 
These  things  require  no  humbling  of  the  soul,  no  crucifying 
of  self,  no  virtue  of  intellect,  no  new  intellectual  life,  no  change 
into  a  life  of  holiness.  Hence,  they  are  swallowed  without 
sugar.  But  whosoever  will  believe  in  Jesus  must  be  ready  to 
change  himself  and  do  his  will.  They  can  not,  therefore, 
believe  in  him.     A  celebrated  infidel  once  said  to  a  friend  of 


OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 


79 


his,  who  had  imbibed  the  same  principles:   ''Only  a  bad  life 
is  against  that  Bible."     Men  must  have  a  right  heart  in  order 
to  a  right  belief;  they  must  have  intellectual  virtue  in  order 
to  believing  virtue.     One  of  the  finest,  ablest  of  living  infidels 
—Lecky— writes :   ''The  phrase,  'intellectual  virtue,'    .     . 
is  susceptible  of  a  strictly  literal  interpretation.     If  a  sincere 
and  active  desire  for  truth  be  a  moral  duty,  the  discipline  and 
the  dispositions  that  are  plainly  involved  in  every  honest  search 
fall  rigidly  within  the  range  of  ethics.    To  love  truth  sincerely 
means  to  pursue  it  with  an  earnest,  conscientious,  unflagging 
zeal.     It  means  to  be  prepared  to  follow  the  light  of  evidence 
even  to  the  most  unwelcome  conclusions;  to  labor  earnestly 
to  emancipate  the  mind  from  early  prejudices;  to  resist  the 
current  of  desires  and  the  refracting  influence  of  passions;  to 
proportion  on  all  occasions  conviction  to  evidence,  and  to  be 
ready,  if  need  be,  to  exchange  the  calm  of  assurance  for  all 
the  suffering  of  a  perplexed  and  disturbed  mind.     To  do  this 
is  very  difficult  and  very  painful,  but  it  is  clearly  involved  in 
the  notion  of  an   earnest  Ic^e  of  truth." — Lecky' s  Europ. 
Mor.f  Vol.  II.,  pp.  200,  201.    Truer  words  were  never  uttered. 
They  but  sum  up  the  considerations  I  have  been  urging. 
They  let  us  into  the  secret  of  unbelief.     They  present  unbelief 
in  truth  as  the  foul  child  of  pride,  stubbornness,  selfishness, 
and  of  unwillingness  to  walk  in  the  truth.    They  present  man 
as  walking  in  the  easy,  broad  road  of  error  and  death,  rather 
than  to  climb  the  strait  and  narrow  way  of  truth  into  eternal 
life.    They  present  man  as  preferring  to  die  of  sin  rather  than 
to  hve  of  righteousness.     Sir  Philip  Sidney  said:   "He  that 
finds  truth  without  loving  her  is  like  a  bat;  which,  though  it 
have  eyes  to  discern  that  there  is  a  sun,  yet  hath  so  evil  eyes 
that  it  can  not  delight  in  the  sun."     There  is  no  such  thing 
as  a  man  believing  the  gospel  (of  course  there  may  be  intel- 
lectual assent  to  its  truth,  but  this  is  not  true  belief)  without 


So  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

willingness  to  do  its  commands ;  there  is  no  such  thing  as  not 
believing  it  when  the  heart  desires  to  do  its  commands.  F. 
W.  Robertson,  not  "hurt  with  orthodoxy,"  remarks;  "All 
truth  undone  becomes  unreal.".  "If  any  man" — however 
great  an  unbeliever — "will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the 
doctrine,  whether  it  be  of  God."  "Know,  without  star  or 
angel  for  their  guide,  who  worship  God  shall  find  him;  hum- 
ble love,  and  not  proud  reason,  keeps  the  door  of  heaven ; 
love  finds  admission  where  proud  science  fails."  A  good  man 
easily  believes  in  good,  a  bad  man  does  not. 

"Convince  a  man  against  his  will, 
He's  of  the  same  opinion  still." 

Jesus,  in  whose  heart  the  serpent  never  trailed,  whose  heart 
was  unstained,  never  doubted  a  word  of  the  Bible — believed 
all  good,  and  left,  as  his  last  message  of  love,  the  awful  judg- 
ment of  justice  on  a  corrupt  heart,  "He  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned."  Let  us  beware  of  "an  evil  heart  of  un- 
belief." 

6.  Unbelief  in  anything  good  is  itself  immoral — wicked. 
Is  any  man  prepared  to  deny  there  is  sin  in  not  believing  in 
the  purity  of  a  good  woman;  in  not  believing  in  the  integrity 
of  a  good  man;  in  not  believing  in  purity;  in  not  believing 
n  honesty,  justice,  and  all  that  is  good?  Is  any  man  pre- 
pared to  affirm  there  is  no  sin  in  believing  in  murder,  homi- 
cide, suicide,  lying,  stealing,  cheating,  fornication,  gambling, 
drunkenness,  slander,  seduction — is  any  man  ready  to  say  there 
is  no  sin  in  believing  in  a  lie,  in  believing  in  anything  wrong? 
Yet,  the  historian  and  the  expounder  of  ethics  well  know  that 
there  is  not  a  form  of  sin  or  crime  which  has  not  many  able 
advocates  in  literature  and  practice.  These  men,  such  as 
Lycurgus,  Cicero,  Aristotle,  Plato,  Voltaire,  Hume,  Hobbes, 
have  all,  with  many  others,  believed  in  various  crimes.     So 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  8 1 

do  many  to-day.  Is  any  man  ready  to  say,  it  is  not  wrong  to 
believe  in  such  things  ?  Is  any  man  ready  to  deny  that  such 
belief  should  cast  a  man  out  of  society — damn  him  here  and 
hereafter?  Infidel  writings  say,  "Yes;  no  harm  in  such 
beliefs."     See  Chapter  III.  of  this  book. 

The  heart  of  unbelief  is  an  "evil  heart."  Why,  then, 
should  not  men  be  damned  for  disbelieving  in  the  justice  and 
holiness  of  God's  nature?  Why  should  men  not  be  damned 
for  disbelieving  in  the  infinite  perfections  of  him  who  dwells 
in  inapproachable  light?  Why  should  they  not  be  damned 
for  disbelieving  in  a  God  so  full  of  love  as  to  give  his  Son  to 
die  to  save  them  ?  Why  should  men  not  be  damned  for  not 
believing  in  Jesus?  Shall  men  be  free  to  insult  God  by  dis- 
believing him,  by  disbelieving  in  his  glorious  law,  by  disbe- 
lieving in  Jesus  Christ  and  his  gospel  ?  Shall  the  insult  of 
disbelief  which  made  Sodom,  built  the  fires  and  burnt  the 
sacrifices  of  Hinnom,  which  crucified  the  Son  of  God,  which 
made  the  French  Revolution,  be  housed  and  fed  in  the  human 
soul,  and  yet  J:hat  soul  not  be  damned?  If  so,  the  darkest 
heart  of  unbelief  is  as  good  as  the  believing  heart  of  an  angel, 
as  good  as  the  believing  heart  of  him  who  spoke  and  lived  as 
never  man  lived!  If  unbelief,  if  disbelief  is  no  sin,  let  us 
take  the  disbeliever  and  scorner  of  woman's  virtue,  of  man's 
integrity,  of  all  that  is  good,  into  the  bosom  of  our  family, 
let  us  crown  him  an  angel  for  his  disbelief,  for  the  spotless- 
ness  of  his  heart!  God's  law  and  the  gospel — the  cross — are 
the  embodiment  of  all  that  is  good  among  men  and  angels. 
Let  us  rather  join  the  Savior  in  caUing  unbelief  the  child  of 
"an  evil  heart."  Let  us  join  him  in  saying,  "He  that  be- 
lieveth  not  shall  be  damned."  Let  us  join  the  angelic  host 
and  the  glorified  in  their  "voice  of  many  waters,"  in  rejoicing 
over  the  judgments  of  heaven  upon  the  leprous  heart  of  dis- 
belief.    The  good  on  earth  and  the  good  in  heaven  join  in 


82  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

harmony  to  the  praise  of  the  justice  of  God  upon  a  heart  so 
foul  as  to  cast  out  and  outrage  the  virgin  daughter  of  the  heart 
— faith. 

*<  What  is  unbeHef? 
'Tis  an  exploit,  a  strenuous  enterprise. 

To  gain  it  man  must  burst  through  every  bar  of  common-sense, 
Of  common  shame- — magnanimously  wrong." 

7.  Men  are  what  they  believe.  If  a  man  believes  in  theft 
he  is  a  thief.  If  a  man  believes  in  murder  he  is  a  murderer. 
If  a  man  believes  in  anything  bad  he  is  anything  bad.  To 
disbelieve  in  honesty,  purity,  anything  good,  is  equivalent  to 
a  belief  in  the  contrary — it  is  the  belief  in  the  contrary. 
There  is  sometimes  a  middle  between  belief  and  disbelief, 
but  in  morals  and  religion  not  to  believe  is,  generally,  to  be- 
lieve the  contrary.  All  experience  and  science  join  the  Scrip- 
ture in  sa^^ing,  "As  he  thinketh" — believeth — "in  his  heart 
so  is  he."  "For  out  of  the  heart  proceed  evil  thoughts,  mur- 
ders, adulteries,  fornications,  thefts,  false  witness,  blasphemies : 
these  are  the  things  which  defile  a  man :  but  to  eat  with  un- 
washed hands  defileth  not  a  man." — Matt.  xv.  19,  20.  As  a 
man  is  what  he  believes,  and  the  law  and  the  gospel  of  God 
are  the  essence  of  all  moral  good,  to  disbelieve  them  is  to  be- 
lieve in  the  contrary.  This  makes  a  man  a  defiled  man,  unfit 
for  heaven  and,  by  justice  on  sin,  condemned  to  hell. 

THE    OUTWARD    LIFE    IS    WHAT   THE    HEART    IS. 

The  outward  life  is  but  the  reflection  of  the  heart.  * '  For 
out  of  the  heart  proceed  evil  thoughts,  murder,  adulteries,  forn- 
ications, thefts,  false  witness,  blasphemies."  We  have  seen 
that  the  reason  men  can  not  believe  in  good  is  because  they 
will  not  "^^  the  doctrine."  Draper,  an  infidel,  says:  "The  < 
physical  speculations  (infidelity  he  means)  of  Greece  and 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  83 

Rome  ended  in  sophistry  and  atheism.  ...  As  for  as  could 
be  seen  in  the  times  of  which  we  are  speaking,  the  prospects 
of  civiHzation  were  dark  and  discouraging." — Intel.  Develop, 
of  Europ.,  p.  120.  Of  infidel  France,  Greg — an  infidel — 
speaking  of  the  loss  of  female  virtue,  says:  "The  cause  is, 
they  have  so  little  ^^//<?/' in  their  virtue.  Such,"  says  Greg, 
*'is  the  condition  of  things  when  faith  in  what  is  good,  rev- 
erence for  what  is  pure,  and  relish  for  what  is  natural,  has 
died  out  of  a  nation's  heart." — Greg s  Lit.  and  Soc.  Judg.y 
pp.  179,  181.  Gen.  Charles  Lee,  who  so  disbelieved  the 
gospel  that  he  wrote  in  his  will :  ' '  I  desire  that  I  may  not  be 
buried  in  any  church-yard  or  within  a  mile  of  any  Presby- 
terian or  Anabaptist  meeting-house,"  was  court-martialed  and 
suspended  for  bad  conduct.  A  harlot  was  carried  through 
the  streets  by  French  infidels  and  enthroned  with  great  pomp 
and  ceremony  as  representative  of  their  god.  Buckle,  Dra- 
per, Lecky,  and  every  other  honest  infidel  historian  as  well  as 
Christian,  have  recorded  every  infidel  period  as  the  blackness 
of  darkness  in  morals  and  religion.  (Read  A.  Fuller's  Works, 
Vol.  II.,  pp.  33-48;  Buckle's  Hist.  Civ.;  Lecky' s  Hist.  Mor.; 
Draper's  Intel.  Develop.  Europ.;  Thiers'  Hist.  French  Rev.; 
Farrar's  Hist.  Free  Thought;  Wuttke's  Ethics,  etc.,  etc.)  The 
other  day  an  infidel  wrote  to  the  New  York  Ledger^  asking  ap- 
probation to  poison  his  wife  to  get  another  infidel  ''young 
lady"  of  his  neighborhood,  claiming  to  be  free  from  Christi- 
anity, and  saying:  "I  pity  all  who  are  bound  with  that  galling 
chain,  religious  superstition.  I  am  an  infidel  and  glory  in 
my  mental  freedom." — New  York  Ledger  for  May  i,  1880. 
Volumes  of  such  testimony  to  the  curse  of  unbelief  are  at  hand. 
But  I  must  close  by  referring  to  the  testimony  of  Ralph  Waldo 
Emerson— an  infidel — who  says:  "I  confess  our  later  gener- 
ations appear  ungirt,  frivolous,  compared  with  the  religions  of 
the  last  or  Calvinistic  age."     Buckle,  Hume,  Voltaire,  Lecky, 


84  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

Draper,  Bolingbroke — every  reliable  witness,  whether  Chris- 
tian or  infidel — testify  to  the  influence  of  religious  beliefs  ni 
favor  of  morals  and  civilization.  So  that  the  great  German 
poet,  Goethe — once  an  infidel — confessed:  ''Epochs  of  faith 
are  epochs  of  usefulness;  but  epochs  of  unbelief,  however 
glittering,  are  barren  of  all  permanent  good."  And  Bancroft, 
the  great  American  historian,  who  is  certainly  not  dying  of 
"orthodoxy,"  says:  "Good  government  is  not  the  creation  of 
skepticism.  Her  garments  are  red  with  blood,  and  ruin  is 
her  delight;  her  despair  may  stimulate  to  voluptuousness;  she 
never  kindled  with  the  disinterested  love  of  men." — Hist.  U. 
S.,  Vol.  v.,  pp.  2  2,  24.  A  great  scientist.  Sir  Humphrey  Davy, 
said :  "I  envy  not  the  quality  of  the  mind  or  intellect  in  others; 
not  genius,  power,  wit  or  fancy;  but  if  I  could  choose  what 
would  be  most  dehghtful,  and,  I  believe,  most  useful  to  me, 
I  should  prefer  a  firm  religious  belief  to  every  other  blessing; 
for  it  makes  life  a  discipline  of  goodness — creates  new  hoj^es, 
when  all  hopes  vanish;  and  throws  over  decay,  the  destruc- 
tion of  existence,  the  most  gorgeous  rays  of  all  lights ;  awak- 
ens life  even  in  death,  and  from  corrugation  and  decay  calls 
up  beauty  and  divinity;  makes  an  instrument  of  torture  and 
shame  the  ladder  of  ascent  to  paradise;  and,  far  above  all 
combinations  of  earthly  hopes,  calls  up  the  most  delightful 
visions  and  plains  and  amaranths,  the  gardens  of  the  blest, 
the  security  of  everlasting  joys,  where  the  sensualist  and  the 
skeptic  view  only  gloom,  decay,  annihilation  and  despair." 
In  conclusion,  in  the  Scriptures,  faith,  first,  is  a  moral  aet  of 
the  heart;  second,  reason,  principle  and  experience  prove  be- 
lief or  disbelief  a  moral  quality  of  the  heart,  in  that  (<:?)  belief 
depends  on  a  fair  examination  of  evidence;  {li)  on  a  heart  not 
puffed  with  pride  ;  {c)  on  a  serious  examination  of  Christian- 
ity;  {li)  on  a  willingness  to  do  or  live  the  truth;   {e)  in  that 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  85 

belief  is  a  moral  thing  in  itself;   (/)  in  that  man  is  what  he 
believes;  and,  third,  belief  makes  the  life. 

Nothing  good  and  desirable  in  heaven  or  earth  can  exist 
without  faith.  Faith  is  the  golden  chain  that  binds  husband 
and  wife  together  in  sweet  harmony;  faith  is  the  golden  chain 
that  binds  together  individuals  and  nations  in  commerce  and 
treaties.  Faith  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  family  and 
of  nations.  It  is  the  confidence  in  each  other  that  supplies 
the  love  and  purity  of  the  family,  that  builds  our  railroads 
and  telegraphs,  tunnels  our  mountains  and  rivers,  builds  our 
cities  and  bridges,  plows  our  rivers  and  oceans;  faith  is  the 
confidence  in  each  other  that  keeps  this  world  from  bar- 
barism and  from  being  a  hell.  The  mother  of  faith  in  man 
is  faith  in  God.  Faith  in  God  is  faith  in  his  justice,  faith  in 
his  purity,  faith  in  his  righteousness,  faith  in  his  holiness,  faith 
in  his  goodness  and  mercy,  and  faith  in  his  power  and  wisdom. 
It  leads  man  to  be  like  God  in  goodness  and  mercy,  justice 
and  righteousness.  It  leads  man  to  love  him  as  the  essence 
of  all  good;  to  obey  him  as  the  One  who  commands  all  good; 
and  in  darkness  it  leads  man  to  look  to  him  for  hght;  in 
weakness  to  look  to  him  for  strength;  in  sorrow  to  look  to 
him  for  joy;  in  unrighteousness  to  look  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness. This  is  the  cross  of  Christ;  this  is  the  gospel  that  *'he 
that  believeth  shall  not  be  damned."  Can  anything  but  **an 
evil  heart  of  unbelief"  disbelieve  this  glorious  gospel?  And 
if  a  good  heart  is  rewarded  with  life,  shall  not  an  ''evil  heart'' 
be  rewarded  with  death?  Shall  not  disbelief,  which  destroys 
all  good  on  earth  and  would  destroy  all  good  in  heaven,  which 
strikes  into  a  thousand  pieces  the  golden  chain  that  binds 
earth  together  and  then  binds  it  to  heaven — shall  it  not  be 
cursed  on  earth  and  cursed  in  eternity,  with  more  than  double 
curse?  And  shall  not  he  who  harbors  the  vile  destroyer  of 
all  that  is  good  know  what  it  is  to  make  his  heart  the  den  of 


S6  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

this  outlaw?  Our  Lord,  who  loved  as  never  man  loved,  there- 
fore declared,  '*He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  The 
following  explanation  and  lines  I  here  add  as  an  illustration 
of  how  easy  the  way : 

THE  DYING  KAREN  AND  HIS  TRACT. 

[In  Dr.  Judson's  journal  of  January  12,  1832,  he  mentions  the  case  of  a  Karen  and 
his  wife,  near  the  head  of  the  Patah  River,  who,  though  they  had  never  been  bap- 
tized, and  had  never  seen  the  face  of  a  foreign  ini.>sionary,  both  died  in  the  faith  of 
the  gospel;  the  man  enjoining  it  upon  his  friends  to  have  the  Burman  tract,  from 
which  he  had  learned  the  way  of  salvation,  laid  upon  his  breast,  and  buried  with 
him.  This  tract  was  entitled,  "View  of  the  Christian  Religion.  The  following  lines 
are  suggested  by  the  incident  ] 

He  never  saw 
The  book  of  heavenly  wisdom,  and  no  saint 
Had  told  him  how  the  sinner  might  be  saved. 

But  to  his  hut 
A  little  /racf,  a  messenger  of  love, 
A  herald  of  glad  tidings,  found  its  way : 
Borne  over  rapid  streams,  and  deep  blue  lakes 
Embowered  in  trees,  and  o'er  the  waving  woods, 
Perchance  upon  the  pinions  of  the  breeze. 
At  length  it  came.     It  was  not  like  the  bunch 
Of  brittle  palms  on  which  he  learned  to  read ; 
Its  letters  were  more  nice,  its  texture  fair ; 
Its  words — he  wondered  as  he  looked  on  them. 
There  was  some  holy  love  he  never  knew; 
There  was  a  spirit  breathing  in  each  line ; 
He  felt  unutterable  thoughts,  as  now 
He  scanned  the  whole,  now  read  each  wondrous  word. 
It  told  of  God  the  Maker,  and  of  him 
Who  died  for  man's  salvation  : 

He  wept  and  prayed,  and  mourned  a  wretched  life 
Of  constant  sin,  and  gave  himself  to  God. 

The  hue 
Of  death  was  on  his  cheek.     His  burning  brow 
Told  of  the  pain  he  felt.     Still  no  saint  was  near 
To  tell  of  the  joys  to  come.     No  man  of  God 
Stood  by  his  bed  to  soothe  his  final  hour. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  87 

But  he  had  peace. 
"When  I  am  dead,"  he  said,  "put  ye  the  little  book 
Upon  my  breast,  and  let  it  go  with  me 
Down  to  the  sepulchre.     It  taught  me  all 
That  I  have  learned  of  God,  and  heaven,  and  hell. 
I  love  the  man  who  wrote  it,  and  that  God 
Who  brought  it  to  my  home." 

The  Judson  Offering. 

II.  Old  Testament  Ethics  regards  prayer  aba  basis 
TO  THE  TRUE  LIFE. — In  the  Old  Testament  are  about  eighteen 
different  Hebrew  words  rendered  in  our  version  to  "pray," 
''prayer,"  "praise."  They  beautifully  and  apdy  represent  the 
various  phases  of  prayer.  By  consulting  the  Lexicon,  we  see  that 
they  mean  to  "pray,"  to  "praise,"  "confess,"  "supplicate," 
"intercede,"  "glorify,"  "boast"— in  God,  to  "judge  oneself," 
to  "stretch  out  the  hand" — /.  e.,  reach  to  God  for  the  blessing 
which  he  is  handing  to  us;  to  " bless"— declare  blessed;  to 
"deprecate"—/,  e.,  deprecate  ourselves  and  sin.  The  same 
thing  is  denoted  by  other  words  and  phrases,  such  as  "ask," 
"call  upon."  "Call  upon  me  in  the  day  of  trouble:  I  will 
deliver  thee,  and  thou  shalt  glorify  me."— Ps.  1.  15.  "He 
shall  call  upon  me,  and  I  will  answer  him :  I  will  be  with  him 
in  trouble;  I  will  deliver  him,  and  honor  him."— Ps.  xci.  15. 
"As  for  me,  I  will  call  upon  God;  and  the  Lord  shall  save 

me." Ps.  Iv.  16.      "I  will  call  upon  him  as  long  as  I  live." 

Ps.  cxvi.  2;   2  Chron.  vii.  14.     Prayer  being  the  same  to 

both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments,  and,  like  faith,  so 
much  assailed,  though  somewhat  diffuse,  I  will  here  insert 
one  of  my  sermons  upon  the  subject: 

THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  PRAYER. 
•'What  is  the  Almighty  that  we  should  serve  him?  and  what  profit 
/"should  we  have  if  we  should  pray  unto  him?" — Job  xxi.  15. 

Prayer  is  the  outgushing  of  the  soul  to  God.     Its  cry  for 


88  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED, 

blessings  is  based  upon  God's  ability  and  willingness  to  grant 
them. 

1.  God  commands  his  people  to  pray.  *'Pray  without 
ceasing"  is  the  command  God  has  given  us  in  his  word,  (i 
Thess.  V.  17.) 

2.  God  puts  the  genuine  prayer  into  the  hearts  of  his  people. 
*'The  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirmities;  for  we  know  not 
what  we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought;  but  the  Spirit  itself 
maketh  intercession  for  us  with  groanings  which  can  not  be 
uttered." — Rom.  viii.  26.  ''And  I  will  pour  out  upon  the 
house  of  David,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the 
spirit  of  grace  and  of  supplications." — Zech.  xii.  10.  As 
Harless  puts  it:  ''Prayer  is  'the  emanation  and  operation  of 
the  Spirit,  who  abides  in  the  redeemed  of  Jesus  Christ.'" — 
(Rom.  viii.  16;   Gal.  iv.  6.) — Chr.  Eth.  by  Harless^  p.  308. 

3.  Prayer  is  natural  to  man  when  he  is  in  harmony  with 
himself  and  his  God.  Man  lived  in  communion  with  God 
before  the  fall.  (Gen.  i.  28;  ii.  19,  20.;  The  fall  did  not 
wholly  destroy  man's  spiritual  nature.  His  being  '  'a  religious" 
being  is  an  indication  of  his  glory  before  the  fall.  The  uni- 
versal tendency  of  men  to  pray  is  evidence  that  the  fall  did 
not  wholly  obliterate  the  prayerful  nature  w^ith  which  their 
Creator  endowed  them.  Herbert  Spencer,  a  leading  infidel 
writer,  says:  "Under  all  changes  of  form,  certain  religious 
beliefs  remain  constant.  .  .  While  adverse  criticism  has 
gone  on  from  age  and  age,  destroying  particular  dogmas,  it 
has  not  destroyed  the  fundamental  conceptions  underlying 
these  dogmas." — Spencei^ s  First  Frin.,  pp.  14,  15.  The  uni- 
versality of  prayer,  with  its  prevalence  on  the  brightest  pages 
of  modern  light,  is  evidence  that  it  must  be  classed  with  those 
"religious  beliefs"  which  Herbert  Spencer  acknowledges  "re- 
main constant"  in  spite  of  all  criticism  upon  religion.  The 
storms  of  criticism  beat  upon  prayer  as  one  of  the  Gibraltars 


OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  89 

of  the  religious  conditions  of  men.  Like  our  nature  to  eat, 
drnik  and  breathe,  prayer  universally  forms  a  characteristic  of 
the  nature  of  men  who  are  true  to  themselves  and  their  God. 
Knowledge  may  change,  somewhat,  our  modes  and  concep- 
tions of  eating,  drinking  and  breathing,  and  so  it  may  change 
prayer;  but  it  can  never  remove  either  of  them  from  our  nat- 
ure. As  a  man  eats,  drinks,  and  breathes  less,  the  nearer  he 
is  to  death;  so,  the  nearer  he  is  to  eternal  death,  the  less  he 
feels  inclined  to  pray.  When  the  consumptive  lies  in  the  arms 
of  the  dread  monster,  soon  to  quit  this  mortal  life,  he  cares 
nothing  for  refreshment  for  the  body.  When  Nero  was  fid- 
dling at  the  burning  of  Rome,  as  he  entered  hell,  he  had  lost 
all  tendency  to  pray.  Before  proceeding  farther,  permit  me 
to  ask  you,  my  hearers,  are  you  perfectly  satisfied  without 
praying  ? 

4.  Prayer  is  an  indispensable  means  of  moral  or  spiritual 
development.  First.  Prayer  is  the  condition  of  the  indwell- 
ing of  God  in  our  souls.  Harless  says:  ''That  which  is  able 
to  take  us  out  of  the  domain  of  the  purely  earthly  tendency 
of  our  nature,  is  to  be  sought  for,  not  in  nature  itself,  but  in 
God  the  Creator  and  Preserver  of  our  nature.  .  .  And  it 
is  in  the  breaking  down  of  these  selfish  tendencies,  that  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  enters  into  fellowship  with 
us,  reveals  himself."— C/tr.  Eth.,  pp.  200,  201.  Our  moral 
state  is  as  dependent -upon  the  support  of  God  as  is  our  phy- 
sical state.  There  can,  therefore,  be  no  more  life  of  the  spir- 
itual, than  of  the  physical  nature  of  man,  without  God.  (See 
Anderson  on  Regeneration,  p.  62.)  But  God  does  not  dwell 
in  and  support  a  prayerless  soul.  So  he,  who  was  filled  with 
the  Spirit  as  never  man  was  filled,  said:  "Ask  and  it  shall  be 
given  you.  .  .  For  every  one  that  asketh  receiveth."  'Tf 
ye,  then,  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your 
children,  how  much  more  shall  your  heavenly  Father  give  the 


pO  OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him?"  Matt.  vii.  7,  8;  Luke 
xi.  12.  Second.  Prayer  gives  us  all  the  blessings  necessary 
to  our  spiritual  life.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  words  of 
our  Savior,  just  quoted,  are  but  a  sample  of  the  promises  to 
answer  prayer,  with  which  the  Bible  is  full.  We  not  only 
need  the  Holy  Spirit  to  dwell  within  us,  and  balance  and 
steady  our  spiritual  nature,  but  we  need  God's  protection, 
guidance,  preservation,  and  his  supply  of  our  wants,  both 
spiritual  and  temporal.  Of  prayer,  Shakespeare  has  well 
said: 

"And  nature  does  require 
Her  times  of  preservation,  which,  perforce, 
I,  her  frail  son,  amongst  my  brethren  mortal, 
Must  give  my  attendance  to." 

Looking  over  the  life  of  man,  a  greater  than  Shakespeare 
has  said:  "Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  thee?  and  there  is 
none  upon  earth  that  I  desire  but  thee.  My  flesh  and  my 
heart  faileth,  but  God  is  the  strength  of  my  heart,  and  my 
portion  forever." — Ps.  Ixxiii.  25,  26. 

*To  me  that  bleeding  love  of  his 

Shall  ever  precious  be  ; 

Whatever  he  to  others  is, 

He  is  the  same  to  me." 

Third,  Prayer  blesses  us  in  its  reflex  influence.  God  could 
supply  both  our  spiritual  and  our  temporal  wants  without  any 
anxiety,  exertion,  or  agency  of  us.  But,  to  do  so,  would  be 
our  ruin.  Neither  spiritual  nor  temporal  blessings  would  be 
appreciated  if  we  received  them  without  our  concern;  more- 
over, we  would  become  proud,  idle,  indolent,  diseased,  and 
finally  die;  we  would  be  spiritually  and  temporally  "blest"  to 
death.  Receiving  our  spiritual  and  physical  necessities  with- 
out our  care,  would  make  us  like  a  child  which  is  raised  up 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  9 1 

without  being  taught  to  care  for  itself.  But,  as  the  hot  sum- 
mer's toil  learns  the  farmer  to  appreciate  his  harvests;  as  the 
care  and  the  burden  of  the  counter  and  the  counting-room; 
as  the  dust,  the  heat,  the  noise  and  the  burden  of  the  shop — 
as  these  fit  the  various  business  men  and  mechanics  to  appre- 
ciate money,  learn  them  industry  and  keep  them  out  of 
temptation  and  crime;  so  prayer  learns  the  soul  to  appreciate 
its  blessings  and  helps  to  keep  it  out  of  temptation  and  sin. 
In  a  life  of  industry,  either  spiritual  or  temporal,  the  devil 
finds  little  room  to  build  his  workshop.  Besides  this,  the  asso- 
ciatio7i  and  fellowship  with  God  in  prayer,  tnust  necessarily  mor- 
ally elevate  the  soul.  As  you  desire  to  associate  with  those 
whose  society  is  as  good  and  better  than  yours;  as  you  desire 
to  have  your  children  under  the  influence  of  such  society;  so 
we  should  desire  to  associate  with  God.  In  earthly  matters 
we  understand  the  elevating  influence  of  good  society,  whether 
we  will  understand  it  in  prayer  or  not.  All  history  testifies 
that  men  have  ever,  in  some  measure,  understood  the  influ- 
ence of  Deity  over  men,  through  his  society.  For  example 
of  the  testimony  of  history: 

''In  China,  according  to  Medhurst,  the  priests  of  Buddha 
understand  and  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  assimilation  of  the 
worshiper  to  the  object  worshiped.  They  say:  'Think  of 
Buddha.  If  men  pray  to  Buddha,  and  do  not  become  Buddha, 
it  is  because  the  mouth  prays,  and  not  the  mind.'" — Phil,  of 
the  Plan  of  Salvation,  pp.  37,  38,  39,  40,  41,  43. 

I  may  also  refer  to  the  well-known  classical  illustrations  of 
the  degrading  influence  of  Bacchus  and  the  cruel  and  bloody 
influence  of  Mars.  Or,  I  may  refer  the  Bible  reader  to  the 
horrible  influence  of  Baal  and  of  Moloch  over  their  worship- 
ers; and  to  the  influence  of  Jehovah  over  the  Jews,  by  which 
they  were  elevated  from  the  most  degrading  condition  of  Egyp- 
tian slavery,  to  be  one  of  the  greatest  nations  of  antiquity; 


92  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

by  which  they  were  led  out  of  cruelty  to  tenderness,  out  of 
polygamy  to  monogamy,  out  of  a  slave-holding  to  a  slave- 
liberating  nation,  out  of  a  barbarous,  corrupt,  selfish  nation, 
to  be  a  nation  of  purity,  social  refinement  and  abounding 
charity.  History  has  long  ago  established  the  truism,  that  like 
Deity,  like  worshipers.  What,  then,  can  be  so  elevating  to 
man  as  his  association  with  the  just,  righteous,  pure  and  holy 
God?  As  we  come  from  the  mount  of  communion,  as  Moses' 
face,  shone,  our  lives  must  shine  with  more  than  an  earthly 
light.  Infidels  have  acknowledged  the  morally  elevating  in- 
fluence of  prayer.  Of  prayer.  Prof.  Tyndall  says:  "In  some 
form  or  other,  not  yet  evident,  it  may,  as  alleged,  be  neces- 
sary to  man's  highest  culture.  Certain  it  is,  that  while  I  rank 
many  persons  who  employ  it,  low  in  the  scale  of  being,  others 
who  employ  it  form  a  part  of  the  very  cream  of  the  earth. 
The  faith  that  simply  adds  (Prof.  Tyndall  here  mistakes  false 
professors  for  the  true  ones)  to  the  folly  and  ferocity  of  the 
one,  is  turned  to  the  enduring  sweetness,  holiness,  and  abound- 
ing charity  and  self-sacrifice  of  the  other.  In  its  purer  form, 
prayer  hints  at  a  discipline  which  few  of  us  can  neglect  with- 
out moral  loss." — Pop.  Science  Monthly^  November,  1872. 

Mr.  Lecky,  another  able  and  representative  infidel  writer, 
says :  "It  has  been  observed  that  prayer,  by  a  law  of  our  nat- 
ure and  apart  from  all  supernatural  intervention,  exercises  a 
reflex  influence  of  a  very  beneficial  character  upon  the  minds 
of  the  worshipers.  The  man  who  offers  his  petition  with  pas- 
sionate earnestness,  with  unfaltering  faith,  and  with  a  vivid 
realization  of  the  Unseen  Being,  has  risen  to  a  condition 
which  is  m  itself  eminently  favorable  both  to  his  own  happi- 
ness and  to  the  happiness  of  his  moral  faculties." — Hist.  Europ. 
Mor.,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  36,  37.  Here  Prof.  Tyndall  and  Mr.  Lecky 
strikingly  testify  to  the  truth  of  Cowper's  lines,  applied  to 
communion  with  God  in  prayer:  "'Tis  there  alone  (in  prayer) 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  93 

his  faculties  expanded  in  full  bloom  shine  out  there  only  reach 
their  proper  use."  So  John  Howard,  Wilberforce,  Muller, 
Spurgeon,  Gary,  Livingston,  Morse,  Newton,  Hugh  Miller, 
Agassiz — the  constellation  of  great  men  who  have  led  the  way 
in  reform,  in  philanthropy,  in  science  and  in  invention,  have, 
with  a  few  exceptions,  been  men  of  prayer.  The  first  message 
over  the  telegraph  its  inventor  made  glorify  God  in  the  words, 
"What  hath  God  wrought?"  D'Aubigne  says:  ''The  *  Ref- 
ormation' was  born  in  Luther's  closet."  It  was  prayer  that 
gave  to  the  Greek  and  Roman  civilizations  that  moral  power 
which  is  essential  to  all  true  progress  and  government.  '  'Greek 
and  Roman  philosophers  often  introduce  their  disquisitions 
with  prayer.  The  Romans  prayed  on  occasions  of  all  import- 
ant events." — Wiittke' s  Eth.,  Vol  II.,  p.  22.  Finally,  skep- 
ticism throws  the  dagger  of  disbelief  into  the  heart  of  prayer. 
But  that  dagger,  in  being  driven  into  the  heart  of  prayer,  was 
driven  into  the  heart  of  Roman  morality  and  civilization.  Dr. 
Draper,  himself  an  infidel,  preaches  the  funeral  of  prayer,  for 
that  time,  when  he  says:  "And  in  the  end  were  replaced 
crimes  such  as  the  world  had  never  before  witnessed  and  never 
will  again." — Intel.  Develop,  of  Europ.,  by  Dtnper,  pp.  187, 
190.     All  experience,  true  philosophy  and  history  testify  that, 

"Prayer,  ardent,  opens  heaven,  lets  down  a  stream 
Of  glory  on  the  consecrated  hour 
Of  man  in  audience  with  the  Deity  : 
Who  worships  the  great  God,  that  instant  joins 
The  first  in  heaven  and  sets  his  foot  on  hell." 

5.  Prayer  is  the  closest  harmony  with  reason  and  the  laws 
of  nature 

Eirsf.  What  we  are  to  understand  by  the  "laws  of  nature." 
The  word  law  is  from  the  Anglo  Saxon  legu,  lag,  lah,  from  the 
root  of  lie,  lay.     Hence,  Webster  defines  it,  "A  law  is  that 


94  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS  VINDICATED. 

which  is  laid;  a  rule  of  conduct  or  order  established  by  au- 
thority." Burke  says:  ''Law  is  beneficence  acting  by  rule." 
The  Duke  of  Argyll  says  that  "a  law  is  the  authoritative  ex- 
pression of  human  will  enforced  by  power,  and  that  the  phe- 
nomena of  nature  are  only  really  conceivable  to  us  as  in  like 
manner  the  expressions  of  a  will  enforcing  itself  with  power." 
Dr.  Reid  says:  "The  laws  of  nature  are  the  rules  according 
to  which  effects  are  produced;  but  there  must  be  a  sense  which 
operates  according  to  these  rules.  The  rules  of  navigation 
never  steered  a  ship;  the  law  of  gravity  never  moved  a  planet." 
John  Stuart  Mill  says:  "The  expression,  'law  of  nature,'  is 
generally  employed  by  scientific  men  with  a  sort  of  tacit  ref- 
erence to  the  original  sense  of  law,  namely,  in  expression  of 
the  will  of  a  superior — the  superior  in  this  instance  being  the 
Ruler  of  the  universe." — Quoted  in  Webster's  Die.  So  Dr. 
John  Hall  says:  "There  is  no  law  in  the  universe  but  the 
will  of  a  personal  God."  Paley  says:  "A  law  presupposes 
an  agent;  this  is  only  the  mode  according  to  which  an  agent 
proceeds :  implies  a  power,  for  it  is  the  order  according  to 
which  power  acts.  Without  this  agent,  without  this  power, 
which  are  both  distinct  from  itself,  the  law  does  nothing,  is 
nothing."  Dr.  J.  W.  Dawson  says  that  "natural  laws  are  the 
expressions  of  the  divine  will;"  and  that  there  is  a  "supreme 
will  behind"  them;  that  they  are  "under  the  control  of  a  Law- 
giver wise  and  merciful,  not  a  mere  manager  of  material  ma- 
chinery;" and  that  he  has  made  his  law  "in  his  boundless 
wisdom  and  love  to  meet  our  necessities." — The  Origin  of  the 
World,  pp.  172,  173.  Human  law  is  the  rule  of  the  State, 
of  the  people,  and  of  their  rulers.  By  man  it  was  made  and 
by  man  it  is  followed  or  executed.  Moral  law  is  the  rule  or 
order  of  right.  By  Jehovah  it  was  made  and  by  him  it  is  ex- 
ecuted. Such  a  thing  as  an  eternal,  self-made  or  self-existing, 
and  self-executing  law  exists  in  only  the  frenzied  brain  of  the 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  95 

disbeliever.  So,  the  laws  of  nature  are  only  God's  ways  of 
governing  the  world.  As  Mill  says :  Scientific  men  mean 
that  very  thing  by  the  expression.  Nothing  happens  in  the 
physical  world  any  more  than  in  the  moral  and  political.  It 
is  only  the  action  of  mind  in  these  three  realms.  So,  in  his 
essay  on  ''Correlation  of  Forces,"  Grove  says:  "Causation  is 
the  will  creation,  the  act  of  God."  In  his  Logic^  John  Stuart 
Mill  says :  '  'The  laws  of  nature  do  not  account  for  their  ori- 
gin." In  one  of  his  last  essays  Mill,  "after  rejecting  every 
other  argument  for  the  existence  of  God,  admitted  that  the 
argument  from  design  in  the  universe  is  irresistible,  and  that 
nature  does  testify  of  its  Maker." — Princeton  Review^  for  No- 
vember, 1879.  As  law  can  but  imply  a  personal  law  maker 
and  a  personal  law  executor,  ever  present  in  its  execution, 
natural  law  leads  us  to  see  in  nature  nature's  God.  Says 
Lionel  Beale:  "It  is  certam  that  matter  is  somehow  directed, 
controlled  and  arranged;  while  no  material  force  or  properties 
are  known  to  be  capable  of  discharging  such  functions."  (For 
some  of  these  quotations  I  am  indebted  to  my  brother.  Elder 
A.  J.  Frost,  D.  D.)  We  have,  then,  scientific  men,  reason, 
common-sense  and  experience  informing  us  that  "nature's 
laws"  are  God's  ways  of  ruling  nature.  Beautifully  do  we 
find  the  Bible  testifying  to  these  laws:  "When  he  made  a  de- 
cree for  the  rain,  and  a  way  for  the  thunder  flash."'  And  again : 
"He  hath  established  them  forever  and  ever,  he  hath  made 
a  decree  which  shall  not  pass." — Job  xxviii.  26;  Ps.  cxlviii.  6. 
Second.  Prayer  is  based  on  the  omniscience  of  God.  This 
was  implied  in  what  we  said  on  prayer  being  placed  in  the 
heart  by  the  Spirit.  Jesus  says :  '  'Your  heavenly  Father  know- 
eth  ye  have  need  of  these  things,  before  ye  ask  him." — Matt. 
vi.  8.  This  omniscience  gives  the  Spirit  of  a  wise  prayer, 
and  is  the  limitation  of  prayer  to  only  that  which  is  both  good 
and  wise.     True,  men  often  seem  to  pray  for  foolish  things ; 


96  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

but,  d.^ prayer  \%  first  put  into  the  heart  — ''the  breath  of  God 
in  man  returning  whence  it  came"  —it  is  clear  that  such  things 
are  not  any  part  of  prayer,  but  only  the  fleshly  desire  of  the 
heart.  From  this  it  is  clear  that  we  can  pray  for  nothing  evil 
or  unwise,  to  ourselves  or  to  others. 

Third.  Let  us  now  notice  how  prayer  is  in  harmony  with 
"nature's  laws."  I  will,  first,  show  how  prayer  can  be  an- 
swered, by  ignoring  the  true  meaning  of  "natural  law,"  upon 
the  extreme  evolutionist  theory,  namely :  that  when  God  made 
the  world,  as  the  boy  says,  he  "set  it  agoing,"  and  it  has  been 
a  thing  uninfluenced  by  hmi  ever  since ;  run  only  by  some 
kind  of  a  law  that  guides  and  controls  and  gives  power  to  it- 
self— a  kind  of  perpetual  motion.  Let  it  not  be  forgotten, 
that,  if  he  made  such  a  world,  he  made  it  to  fulfill  his  pur- 
poses. He,  therefore,  arranged  it  as  a  clock  is  arranged,  to 
strike  at  a  certain  hour;  to,  at  a  certain  time,  perform  a  cer- 
tain thing.  As  the  clock-maker  saw  how  to  arrange  the  clock 
to  strike  twelve  at  a  certain  time,  and  did  so  arrange  it,  so 
God  saw  how  to  arrange  the  world  to  bring  about  certain  an- 
swers to  prayer  at  certain  times,  and  did  so  arrange  it.  Thus, 
we  may  suppose  he  arranged  nature,  to  divide  the  Red  Sea 
and  the  Jordan ;  to  stop  the  revolution  of  the  earth ;  to  bring 
on  the  flood;  to  prevent  the  fire  from  destroying  the  Hebrew 
children;  to  prevent  the  rain,  etc.,  etc.  If  it  be  answered 
that  this  implies  too  much  knowledge,  and  foresight,  and  power, 
the  answer  is:  Nothing,  not  inconsistent  with  righteousness 
and  wisdom,  is  "too  much"  for  God.  And,  besides,  it  mi- 
plies  no  more  than  this  extreme  evolutionist  theory  implies; 
for,  according  to  it,  God  must  have  arranged  nature  to  per- 
form everything  it  is  performing,  from  the  greatest  to  the  least, 
and  that,  too,  with  the  utmost  certainty  and  precision.  If  it 
be  asked.  Why  pray,  if  the  world  is  arranged  to  bring  the  an- 
swer to  prayer?  the  answer  is:  Pray  because  God  says  pray, 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED.  nj 

and  because  prayer  is  a  part  of  the  plan,  or  a  condition  in 
nature  to  bring  about  the  result  given  in  answer  to  prayer. 
As  well  ask  why  do  anything,  if  there  is  such  a  previous  ar- 
rangement of  nature  ? 

But,  as  we  have  seen  from  the  definition  of  the  'Maws  of** 
nature,"  given  by  the  highest  scientific  authority,  which  is 
based  on  experience,  common-sense  and  fact,  God  did  not 
thus  constriict  the  world.  I,  therefore,  will  show  how  God 
answers  prayer  according  to  what  are  ''laws  of  nature."  The 
testimony  of  scientific  men  is  given  in  the  words  of  the  greatest 
living  biologist,  when  he  says:  "It  is  certain  that  matter  is 
somehow  directed,  controlled  and  arranged;  while  no  material 
force  or  properties  are  known  to  be  capable  of  discharging 
such  functions."  Taking,  then,  "nature's  laws"  as  being  only 
God's  rule  or  way  of  governing  the  world,  we  have  no  diffi- 
culty in  seeing  how  he  answers  prayers.     To  be  particular : 

I.  We  have  seen  that  it  is  his  rule  to  morally  elevate  man 
through  prayer.  As  Mr.  Lecky,  an  infidel,  supported  by  Prof. 
Tyndall  in  the  statement,  says:  "It  has  been  often  observed 
that  prayer,  by  a  law  of  our  nature,  exercises  a  reflex  influence 
of  a  very  beneficial  character  upon  the  minds  of  the  worship- 
ers."—^/j/.  Europ.  Mor.,  Vol.  /.,  //.  36,  37.  Thus,  intelli- 
gent infidels  concede  that  it  is  the  office  of  one  of  the  "laws 
of  our  nature"  to  make  us  better  men  and  women  by  prayer. 
Or,  in  the  language  of  the  definition  of  nature's  laws— God's 
way  to  make  us  better  in  prayer. 

2.  We  have  called  attention  to  all  history  as  proving  that 
our  fellowship  with  the  object  of  our  worship  makes  us  like 
that  object.  This,  then,  is  another  of  "nature's  laws."  It  is 
so  settled  and  can  never  be  different  till  God  changes  our 
nature.  Apply  this  law  to  prayer,  and  we  see  how  God  makes 
us  better  in  prayer. 

3.  We  have  called  attention  to  all  history  as  proving  that 


98  OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

nations  are  built  up  and  perpetuated  by  the  moral  support  of 
prayer.  It  is,  therefore,  one  of  the  laws  of  nature  to  build 
and  keep  up  nations  through  prayer. 

4.  We  have  seen  that  it  is  a  law  of  nature  that  God  breathes 
into  us  the  breath  of  prayer,  to  return  to  him,  as  the  vapor 
returns  from  the  earth,  to  be  returned  back  again  to  water  our 
souls  with  moral  refreshings  from  heaven. 

5.  But  we  now  notice,  especially,  the  influence  of  prayer 
over  physical  nature.  Were  we  to  admit  that  prayer  has  no 
influence  over  physical  nature,  from  the  facts  just  given,  it  is 
setded  that  prayer  is  the  power  and  lever  of  the  moral  world, 
and  that  it  can  not  therefore  be  dispensed  with  without  moral 
ruin.  But  I  am  fully  convinced  that  its  power  is  manifest  in 
the  physical  world.  As  proof  of  its  power  in  the  physical 
world,  observe,  first,  it  is  a  law  of  nature  that  mind  controls 
matter.  All  science  and  civilization  witness  to  the  power  of 
mind  over  matter.  Prayer  controls  matter  directly  and  indi- 
rectly. It  controls  it  indirectly  as  it  causes  us  to  act  differ- 
ently upon  the  world;  it  inspires  us  with  a  sense  of  the  su- 
periority of  mind  over  matter,  with  a  sense  of  our  sovereignty 
of  this  world,  and  with  a  sense  of  our  moral  responsibility. 
This  leads  us  to  rightly  rule,  subdue,  multiply  and  replenish 
the  earth.  Out  of  this  has  grown  the  glory  of  our  civilization. 
Again,  prayer  directly  influences  nature ;  it  brings  the  divine 
mind  to  act  directly  upon  nature  in  certain  ways.  Thus,  it 
led  him  to  stop  the  earth  in  its  rotation,  to  prevent  the  rain, 
to  quench  the  flame,  stop  the  mouths  of  lions,  open  the  prison 
doors,  and  raise  the  dead. 

There  is  nothing  unreasonable  in  presuming  that  the  divine 
mind  controls  matter.  We  know  the  human  mind  controls  it 
so  as  to  remove  disease;  subdue  mighty  conflagrations;  plough 
rivers  and  oceans;  make  hot  water  and  make  ice;  tunnel 
mountains  and  rivers;  change  climates  and  seasons;  dip  the 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  99 

water  from  rivers  and  make  it  pull  carriages  at  a  mile  a  min- 
ute; and  seize  the  lightning  and  make  it,  in  a  moment,  whis- 
per in  a  brother's  ear  on  the  other  side  of  the  globe.  Why, 
then,  doubt  that  the  divine  mind  controls  nature?  We  are 
but  tiny  infants — nor  even  worthy  of  that  comparison — and  if 
we  can  perform  such  wonders  in  nature,  why  should  it  be 
thought  strange  that  God  should  perform  wonders  that  dazzle 
us  by  their  glory?  If  we,  but  "worms  of  the  dust,"  can  per- 
form wonders,  the  half  of  which  is  not  yet  known  or  dreamed, 
why  should  we  limit  the  infinite,  Holy  One  of  Israel?  The 
heathen  poet,  Horace,  had  more  truth  in  him  than  many  now 
have,  for  he  wrote  : 

"Who  guides  below  and  rules  above, 
The  great  Disposer  and  the  mighty  King; 
Than  he,  none  greater,  next  him  none, 
That  can  be,  is,  or  was ; 
Supreme  he  singly  fills  the  throne." 

If  it  be  supposed  that  such  mighty  deeds  upon  the  part  of 
God,  would  lead  him  to  violate  and  revolutionize  nature,  the 
reply  is:  Why  not  say  that  man  had  better  stop  his  great 
achievements  over  nature,  lest  he  violate  and  revolutionize 
it?  Why  not  forbid  a  skillful  physician  from  curing  a  case 
which  an  unskillful  one  can  not  cure,  lest  he  should  violate 
and  revolutionize  nature?  If  great  achievements  over  nature 
threaten  us  with  "the  wreck  of  matter  and  the  crash  of  worlds," 
let  us  have  Congress  pass  a  law  against  the  rolling  of  the  wheel 
of  progress  over  nature.  Is  natural  law  any  more  violated 
by  the  civilized  man  than  by  the  barbarian  ?  How,  then,  does 
the  right  exercise  of  Almighty  power  violate  nature's  laws? 
But  we  have  seen  that  "nature's  laws"  are  only  God's  way 
or  rules  of  action  upon  nature.  How,  then,  can  any  one  sup- 
pose that  he  violates  his  own  way  by  his  own  way  ?     For  this 


lOO  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

is  all  that  the  objection  amounts  to.  Are  ''nature's  laws"  vio- 
lated when  the  boy  stops  the  ball  from  falling  as  he  catches 
it;  when  the  firemen  extinguish  a  mighty  conflagration;  when 
mountains  and  rivers  are  tunneled,  and  the  lightning  is  chained 
and  harnessed?  How,  then,  can  "nature's  laws"  be  violated 
when  the  Almighty,  in  answer  to  the  prayers  of  his  people, 
clothes  and  feeds  the  believing  poor,  binds  up  the  bleeding, 
broken  heart,  strengthens  the  feeble  knees  and  supports  the 
hands  from  falling  under  burdens?  Does  he  violate  his  rule 
of  goodness,  love  and  mercy  in  conforming  to  it? 

While  this  is  not  the  age  of  miracles,  if  it  w^ere,  there  could 
be  no  objection  to  prayer  for  miracles.  As  Prof.  Tyndall  says : 
"If  you  ask  me  who  is  to  limit  the  outgoings  of  Almighty 
power,  my  answer  is,  not  I.  If  you  should  urge  that  if  the 
Builder  and  Maker  of  this  universe  should  choose  to  stop  the 
rotation  of  the  earth  on  its  axis,  or  to  take  the  form  of  a  burn- 
ing bush,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  him  from  doing  so,  I  am 
not  prej^ared  to  contradict  you." — TyndaW s  Frag,  of  Set.,  p. 
421.  Miracles  are  but  the  greater  or  unusual  actions  of  the 
divine  mind  upon  nature. 

Again,  says  our  infidel  friend.  Prof.  Tyndall:  "The  theory 
that  the  system  of  nature  is  under  the  control  of  a  Being,  who 
changes  phenomena  in  compliance  with  the  prayers  of  men, 
is  in  my  opinion  a  perfectly  legitimate  one.  .  .  .  It  is  a 
matter  of  experience  that  an  earthly  father,  who  is  at  the  same 
time  wise  and  tender,  listens  to  the  requests  of  his  children, 
and  if  they  do  not  ask  amiss,  takes  pleasure  in  granting  their 
requests.  We  know,  also,  that  these  requests  extend  to  the 
alteration,  within  certain  limits  of  the  current  events  of  the 
earth.  With  this  suggestion,  offered  by  our  experience,  it  is 
no  departure  from  scientific  methods  to  place  behind  natural 
phenomena,  a  universal  Father,  who,  in  answer  to  the  pray- 
ers of  his  children,  alters  the  currents  of  phenomena.     Thus 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  lOI 

far,  theology  and  science  go  hand  in  hand." — Popular  Science 
Monthly,  November,  1872.  Lord  Bacon  said:  "It  is  true  that 
a  little  philosophy  inclineth  man's  mind  to  atheism,  but  depth 
in  philosophy  bringeth  men's  minds  about  to  religion;  for 
while  the  mind  of  man  looketh  upon  second  causes  scattered, 
it  may  sometimes  rest  in  them,  and  go  no  further ;  but  when 
it  beholdeth  the  chain  of  them  confederate,  and  hnked  to- 
gether, it  must  needs  fly  to  Providence  and  Deity."  I  borrow 
a  few  illustrations:*  "In  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  of  En- 
gland, and  Philip  II.  of  Spain,  there  arose  a  contest  which  in- 
volved the  fate  of  millions.  Protestant  and  Catholic  Europe 
were  on  the  eve  of  a  terrible  religious  war.  Protestantism  was 
on  her  knees;  Catholicism  in  arms.  At  length  The  Invincible 
Ar77iada,  the  greatest  fleet  of  all  time,  was  launched  upon  the 
sea ;  but,  remember,  God  holds  the  sea  'in  the  hollow  of  his 
hand.'  It  sailed  up  the  English  Channel  in  the  form  of  a  cres- 
cent, the  horns  of  which  were  seven  miles  apart.  England 
'cried  unto  the  Lord  in  her  trouble,  and  he  saved  her  out  of  her 
distress.'  The  God  of  nature  saw  fit  to  combine  the  wind 
and  storm  and  sea  in  such  a  manner  as  to  utterly  destroy  the 
Spanish  Armada,  so  that  not  a  single  individual  of  that  mighty 
armament  was  permitted  to  desecrate  the  soil  of  England. 
Protestants  and  Catholics  alike  were  amazed  at  this  signal  in- 
tervention of  Divine  Providence.  There  was  a  threefold 
verdict  rendered.  The  people  said:  'The  Armada  was  in- 
vincible to  man,  but  destroyed  by  the  Lord;'  the  Queen  said: 
'God  breathed  and  they  were  destroyed;'  Philip  II.  said: 
'I  bow  to  the  decrees  of  heaven.' " 

Take  another  illustration  from  English  history.  Just  one 
hundred  years  after  the  destruction  of  the  Spanish  Armada, 
the  religious  liberties  of  England  were  again  threatened  by  the 

*  From  Rev.  A.  J.  Frost,  D.  D. 


I02  OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

treachery  of  James  II.  in  his  endeavors  to  subvert  the  gov- 
ernment and  establish  popery.  The  Christians  of  the  reahii 
invited  Prince  WiUiam  of  Orange  to  come  over  from  Holland 
and  help  them.  He  acceded  to  their  request,  raised  an  army 
and  set  sail,  but  the  wind  was  unfavorable.  A  day  of  fasting 
and  praying  was  observed,  that  wind  and  tide  might  favor  the 
enterprise.  "The  Protestant  wind,"  as  it  was  styled,  came; 
the  fleet  sailed,  and  to  quote  from- English  history:  "The  wind 
that  blew  briskly  from  the  East  detained  the  king's  vessels  of 
war  helplessly  in  the  Thames,  while  it  carried  the  fleet  of  the 
i:>rince  prosperously  down  the  channel — it  turned  to  the  South 
when  he  wished  to  enter  Torbay;  it  sank  to  calm  during  the 
disembarkation,  and  as  soon  as  the  disembarkation  was  com- 
pleted, it  rose  to  a  storm  and  met  the  pursuers  in  the  face. 
So  remarkable  was  all  this,  so  timely  and  favorable  was  each 
particular  change,  that  pious  men  naturally  regarded  it  as 
nothing  less  than  the  interposition  of  God  in  answer  to  their 
prayers." 

Take  one  more  illustration  from  the  history  of  our  own 
country:  In  1746,  the  French  fitted  out  a  powerful  fleet  for 
the  destruction  of  New  England.  These  forty  ships  of  war 
were  under  the  command  of  the  Duke  d'Anville,  and  set  sail 
from  Nova  Scotia.  New  England  was  fasting  and  praying. 
The  people  prayed  for  a  tempest,  and  while  in  the  act  of  sup- 
plication— though  the  day  had  been  calm — the  storm  arose  in 
great  fury,  and  a  great  part  of  the  fleet  was  wrecked  on  the 
coast  of  Nova  Scotia.  The  Duke  d'Anville  and  the  second 
general  in  command  committed  suicide,  many  died  with  dis- 
ease, thousands  were  drowned,  and  the  enterprise  was  aban- 
doned forever. 

Conclusion. — i.  We  have  seen  that  the  Bible  and  the  sci- 
entific men  are  agreed  that  "nature's  laws"  are  God's  ways, 
or  rules  of  acting  upon  matter. 


OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED. 


103 


2.  That  God's  rule  is,  to  act  upon  both  spirit  and  matter  in 
answer  to  prayer. 

3.  That  all  true  prayer  '4s  the  breath  of  God  in  man,  re- 
turning whence  it  came;"  and  is,  therefore,  limited  by  the 
wisdom  and  the  goodness  of  God. 

4.  That  prayer  is  a  blessing  to  man,  directly  and  indirectly 
— by  reflex  influence  and  by  direct  and  positive  answers  being 
given. 

5.  That  we  can  not  dispense  with  prayer.  For  it  is  the 
moral  support  and  moral  growth  of  individual  and  national 
hfe. 

To  these  things  let  us  add, 

First.  Inasmuch  as  prayer  is  in  such  complete  harmony 
with  "nature's  laws" — God's  ways  of  blessing  us  -to  not  pray, 
is  to  violate  nature's  laws;  which,  considering  our  necessities 
which  are  met  only  in  prayer,  must  result  in  our  suffering  want 
and  eternal  moral  ruin. 

Second.  In  the  language  of  Prof.  Dawson,  one  of  the  great- 
est of  living  scientific  men:  ''If  the  universe  were  a  mere 
chaos  of  chances,  or  if  it  were  a  result  of  absolute  necessity, 
there  would  be  no  place  for  intelligent  prayer;  but  if  it  is  un- 
der the  control  of  a  Lawgiver,  wise  and  merciful,  not  a  mere 
manager  of  material  machinery,  but  a  true  Father  of  all,  then 
we  can  go  to  such  a  Being  with  our  requests,  not  in  the  belief 
that  we  can  change  his  great  plans,  or  that  any  advantage 
could  result  from  this  if  it  were  possible,  but  that  these  plans 
may  be  made  in  his  boundless  wisdom  and  love  to  meet  our 
necessities." 

Third.  In  the  language  of  Prof.  Dawson,  again:  "The  po- 
sition of  the  Bible  is  thus  the  true  mean  between  superstitions 
at  once  unhappy  and  debasing,  and  a  materialistic  infidelity 
that  would  reduce  the  universe  to  a  dead,  remorseless  machine, 
in  which  we  must  struggle  for  a  precarious  existence,  till  we 


I04  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

are  crushed  between  its  wheels." — Origm  of  our  Wo?id,  pp. 

172,  173- 

Fourth^  and  finally.  To  him  who  asks,  in  the  skeptic's  lan- 
guage quoted  in  our  text:  "What  is  the  Almighty  that  we 
should  serve  him?  and  what  profit  should  we  have  if  we  pray 
unto  him?"  we  answer:  Much  every  way.  He  is  the  Maker 
and  ever-present  Ruler  of  this  universe.  To  all  that  call  up- 
on him,  he  is  a  tender  Father;  the  world  is  his  house;  he  is 
our  Father;  we  live  in  his  house;  he  built  this  house  for  those 
who  love  and  trust  him;  the  world — this  house — is  for  his 
children,  and  not  they  for  the  house.  "When  the  morning 
stars  sang  together  and  all  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy" 
(Job  xxxviii.  7),  it  was  because  they  heard  the  "Builder  and 
Maker' '  of  this  house  declare  that  it  was  good — good,  not  to 
shut  the  Father  from  his  children,  stop  the  hand  that  feeds  them, 
close  the  bosom  in  which  they  were  to  be  carried,  and  crush 
out  their  life  and  joy  as  a  juggernaut  of  materialistic  fate; 
good,  not  because  the  children  were  made  for  the  house,  but 
good  because  the  house  was  made  for  the  children;  good, 
because  its  every  door  and  window,  hinge  and  lock,  was  made 
to  be  opened  and  shut  by  the  Father  for  his  children;  good, 
because  its  every  department  is  fitted  up  to  cheer  and  make 
glad  the  heavenly  fireside.  Prayer  presents  us  around  our 
Father's  table,  in  his  house,  with  our  Father  having  girded 
himself  with  goodness  and  love,  feeding  us,  binding  up  our 
bleeding  and  broken  hearts,  from  Calvary's  basin  washing  our 
sin-wounds.  Prayer  is  the  key  to  light,  to  righteousness,  to 
peace  and  joy,  to  immortality  and  glory — to  all  that  we  can 
think  of  that  is  good,  and  more  too.  In  the  language  of  the 
poet  laureate  of  England,  Tennyson : 

"More  things  are  wrought  by  prayer 
Than  this  world  dreams  of.     Wherefore  let  thy  voice 
Rise  like  a  fountain  for  me  night  and  day  ; 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  105 

For  what  are  men  better  than  sheep  or  goats, 
That  nourish  a  blind  life  within  the  brain, 
If  knowing  God,  they  lift  not  hands  of  prayer, 
Both  for  themselves  and  those  who  call  them  friend. 
For  so  the  whole  round  world  is  every  way 
Bound  by  gold  chains  about  the  feet  of  God." 

12.  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Atonement  which  he  made 
ARE  fundamental  to  Old  TESTAMENT  Ethics. — The  Hebrew 
word  for  atonement  is  *153 — kaphar.      It  means   ''to  cover 

over  sins;  /.  e  ,  to  forgive,  ...    to  expiate  a  crime 

To  cover  over  sin,  to  hide,  spoken  of  God  as  the  offended 

party;  /.  e.,  to  forgive  sin,  to  pardon  sin Spoken  of 

the  offender  or  his  representative,  to  cover,  to  hide;  /'.  e.,  to 
do  away  by  some  expiatory  act,  to  purge,  so  that  he  may  be 
pardoned;  hence,  to  expiate  an  offense,  fault,  to  make  expia- 
tion for  an  offender,  to  free  him  from  guilt." — Ges.  Lex.  Heb. 
Nowhere  is  there  the  idea  of  mere  covering,  or  concealment 
in  the  word,  as  relates  to  the  subject  of  the  atonement.  Jl^H 
— chaphah,  HD^ — kasah,  and  others,  are  used  to  indicate  such 
covering  as  that.     *)53 — kaphar — occurs  about  seventy-five 

times.  In  all  these  occurrences,  it  includes  or  implies  the 
covering  of  sin  only  through  satisfaction  to  the  offended  Moral 
Governor.  Says  Prof.  Smeaton:  ''Every  Jew  was  aware  that, 
in  consequence  of  transgression,  he  was  liable  to  the  penalty 
which  must  follow ;  and,  in  a  word,  that  there  was  no  endur- 
ing covenant,  and  no  free  access  to  the  Holy  One  without  a 
complete  fulfillment  of  the  law.  No  approach  could  otherwise 
be  allowed  to  God's  presence  in  the  sanctuary  services;  and 
there  was,  besides,  a  conscious  guilt,  which  tended  to  estrange 
the  sinner  from  God,  and  to  make  him  apprehensive.  This  was 
an  education  of  the  people  in  the  knowledge  of  sin.  To  meet 
this  deep-felt  need  of  pardon,  and  as  a  method  of  remitting 


Io6  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

the  penalty  incurred  by  a  violation  of  the  letter,  sacrifices 
were  appointed  which  operated  on  the  conscience  of  the  Jew 
in  a  peculiar  way.  They  gave  him  a  vivid  view  of  the  guilt 
of  sin,  and  of  the  rectitude  and  holiness  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment. The  whole  Old  Testament  was  calculated  to  bring 
into  prominence  the  necessity  of  the  atonement,  and  to  sharp- 
en the  conviction  that  sin  required  a  higher  sacrifice,  presup- 
posed the  sinful  deed,  showed  the  inviolability  of  the  law  and 
covenant." — Afo?ie7?tent,  Vol.  I.,  p.  48.  ^'Conscience  demands 
a  satisfaction  or  atonement.  .  .  .  Till  the  waters  of  rep- 
aration and  punishment  quench  it,  guilt  burns  in  the  human 
heart — nay,  it  would  continue  to  burn  in  the  human  heart  for- 
ever, if  there  was  no  sufficient  atonement;  so  that  they  who 
would  have  pardon  merely  by  God's  retreating  from  the  de- 
mand of  satisfaction,  would  be  followed,  if  they  had  their 
wish,  by  the  inward  pursuer  wherever  they  went.  And  even 
as  their  holiness  grew,  they  would  be  haunted  by  a  keener 
sense  of  guilt,  remembering  that  they  were  the  same  person 
still  and  that  no  reparation  had  been  made.  They  would  be 
disturbed  by  self-accusations,  by  shame  and  a  gnawing  of  con- 
science, till  they  would  long  to  have  the  faculty  of  memory 
destroyed." — Idem,  p.  51.  In  picturing  Lady  Macbeth,  that 
peerless  reader  of  the  laws  of  human  nature,  Shakespeare, 
emphasizes  the  need  of  atonement. 

Doctor. — Look  how  she  rubs  her  hands? 

Gentleman. — It  is  the  accustomed  action  with  her  to  seem  thus  wash- 
ing her  hands.  I  have  known  her  to  continue  in  this  a  quarter  of  an 
hour. 

Lady  Macbeth. — Yet  here's  the  spot ! 

Doctor.  —  Hark!  she  speaks.     I  will  set  down  what  comes  irom  ner. 

Lady  Macbeth. — Out,  damned  spot !  out,  I  say,     .     .     .     Here's  the 
smell  of  the  blood  still.     All  the  perfumes  of  Arabjia  will  not  sweeten  ^ 
this  little  hand. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  I07 

Doctor. — More  needs  she  the  divine  than  the  physician.  God,  God, 
forgive  us  all !  — Macbeth,  Act  K,  Scene  i. 

"Will  all  great  Neptune's  ocean  w^ash  this  blood 
Clean  from  thy  hand?     No  :  this  my  hand  will  rather 
The  multitudinous  seas  incarnadine, 
\  Making  the  green  one  red. 

Methought  I  heard  a  voice,  'Sleep  no  more! 
Macbeth  does  murder  sleep !' — the  innocent  sleep. 
Sleep  that  knits  up  the  raveled  sleeve  of  care, 
The  death  of  each  day's  life,  sore  labor's  bath, 
Realm  of  hurt  minds,  great  nature's  second  course 
Chief  nourisher  in  life's  feast. 
Still  it  cried,  'Sleep  no  more!'  to  all  the  house  : 
•Glamis  hath  murdered  sleep;  and,  therefore,  Cawdor 
Shall  sleep  no  more,  Macbeth  shall  sleep  no  more.'  " 

Lady  Macbeth. — Consider  it  not  so  deeply. 

Macbeth, — But,  wherefore,  could  I  not  pronounce  "Amen?"  I  had 
most  need  of  blessing,  and  "Amen"  stuck  in  my  throat. 

Lady  Macbeth. — Those  deeds  must  not  be  thought  after  these  ways : 
so,  it  will  make  us  mad. 

Man,  with  sin  unatoned,  can  have  no  peace,  falls  into  de- 
spair of  righteousness  and  peace,  and  beyond  all  hope  of  the 
true  life.  Through  hfe,  through  all  eternity,  he  roams  an 
exile  from  God's  government,  lashed  by  the  scorpion  lash  of 
conscience : 

"The  mind  is  its  own  place,  and  in  itself 

Can  make  a  heaven  of  hell,  a  hell  of  heaven." 

Without  the  atonement,  the  deliverance,  in  the  old  Latin 
proverb — '-^Sivisfugcre  a  Deo ;  fuge  ad  Dewn^' — "If  you  wish 
to  flee  from  God,  flee  to  God" — can  be  of  no  avail;  for,  to 
the  unsatisfied  conscience,  '  'God  is  a  consuming  fire ; "  to  such  a 
conscience,  his  hand  of  blessings  waves  only  the  flaming  sword 
of  vengeance. 


Io8  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

Sin,  having  separated  man  from  God,  justice,  unsatisfied 
by  the  atonement,  forbids  that  God  should  commune  with  or 
favor  him.  Hence,  regeneration,  repentance,  faith — in  fact, 
all  the  basis  of  ethics,  noticed  in  the  preceding  eleven  points, 
being  dependent  on  the  power  and  encouragement  of  God's 
favor,  are  ineffectual  without  the  atonement.  The  atonement 
offers  to  man  the  help,  encouragement  of  a  reconciled  God ; 
without  it,  God  is  to  man  but  a  just  and  terrible  Judge,  certain 
to  ' 'destroy  without  remedy."  Under  the  terrible  sight  of 
Lady  Macbeth' s  bloody  hand,  which  can  be  washed  white  by 
only  the  atonement,  man  is  but  the  hopeless  creature  of  de- 
spair. The  only  ho2:)e  of  mortal  man  is  the  '  'blood  that  washes 
white  as  snow." 

"My  God  is  reconciled, 
He  owns  me  for  his  child, 
I  can  no  longer  fear." 

"How  sweet  the  name  of  Jesus  sounds 
In  a  believer's  ear  ; 
It  soothes  his  sorrows,  heals  his  wounds, 
And  drives  away  his  fear." 

The  atonement  is  also  the  expression  of  the  holiness  of  God, 
of  the  holiness  of  the  law,  and  of  the  heiniousness  of  sin. 

First.  The  atonement  measures  the  holiness  of  the  law  by 
what  is  requisite  for  its  satisfaction.  Only  the  infinite  value 
of  the  "blood  of  Jesus  Christ"  was  sufficient  to  meet  the  re- 
quirement of  violated,  insulted  holmess.  In  the  infinite  value 
of  the  satisfaction,  we,  therefore,  have  the  measure  of  the  re- 
quirement of  the  infinite  holiness  of  the  law. 

Second.  The  moral  blackness,  depth  and  guilt  of  sin  is  meas- 
ured by  the  atonement.  Had  sin  been  but  an  imperfection, 
or  the  infidel  "fall  upward,"  or  the  infidel  "justifying  of  every- 
thing," man  could  not  have  been  subject  to  the  holy  law  of 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  I09 

which  he  is  the  subject.  Or,  had  man  been  responsible  in  but 
a  small  measure,  being  but  a  little  above  the  brute — a  little 
higher  than  infidelity  places  him — sin  could  have  been  only 
such  a  trifle  as  that  but  a  low  price  could  have  ''redeemed'' 
the  sinner  and  have  washed  the  "bloody  hand."  But,  when 
we  see  that  only  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  God  can  redeem 
and  wash  the  "bloody  hand,"  we  tremble  before  the  terrible 
nature  of  the  sin  that  leaves  the  stain;  and  in  horror  shrink 
back  from  the  sin  that  leaves  the  "bloody  hand." 

Third.  In  the  atonement  is  the  certainty  of  the  unwashed 
sinner's  doom.  The  atonement  shows  the  hand  so  "bloody," 
the  doom  so  certain,  that — in  awful  reverence  let  it  be  written 
and  read— before  the  sight,  the  infinite  God  stands  powerless, 
as  the  Just  God,  to  rescue,  before  justice  is  satisfied.  His 
love  bursts  out  in  pity;  fills  the  cup  of  justice  with  the  blood 
"that  washes  white  as  snow;"  clasps  the  lost  one  to  his 
bosom;  carries  him  in  triumph  to  the  cleansing  fountain;  over 
death,  hell  and  the  grave  carries  him  to  glory ! 

Fourth.  In  the  atonement  is  exhibited  the  terrible  punish- 
ment of  the  finally  impenitent.  Spurning  the  way  of  salva- 
tion, the  sinner  can  but  meet  the  terrible  punishment  of  that 
holy  law,  of  which  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  God  only  could 
satisfy.  (Heb.  ii.  1-3;  iv.  1-5;  John  iii.  18;  Mark  xvi.  16; 
Matt,  xxiii.  37,  38;  xxv.  46;  Ps.  i.  6.)  What  a  fearful  ques- 
tion for  us,  dear  reader:  "  Who  among  us  shall  dwell  with  the 
devouring  fire?  ?'F//^  among  7^^- shall  dwell  with  everlasting 
burnings?" — Isa.  xxxiii.  14.  Measuring  the  punishment  by 
the  infinite  price  requisite  to  meet  it  in  our  Redeemer,  we 
have  the  "everlasting  burnings,"  the  "devouring  fire,"  heat 
up  "seven  times  hotter." 

Fifth,  In  the  atonement  appears  the  moral  significance  and 
the  dignity  of  man.     For  a  merely  developed  ape,  for  a  being 


no  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

of  any  less  moral  significance  and  dignity  than  man,  no  such 
atonement  could  have  been  required. 

Sixth.  In  the  atonement  appears  the  blessings  of  obedience 
to  the  moral  law.  The  blessing  of  obedience  must  correspond 
to  the  extent  of  the  curse  of  disobedience.  In  the  extent  of 
the  curse  of  sin,  measured  by  the  atonement,  we  have  the 
measure  of  the  blessing  of  righteousness. 

Seventh.  In  the  atonement  is  exhibited  the  love  of  God. 
By  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross  is  measured  the  love  of  God  to 
man.  ''God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten 
Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but 
have  everlasting  life." — John  iii.  i6.  "God  commendeth  his 
love  towards  us,  i7i  that,  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died 
for  us." — Rom.  v.  8.  Touching  are  the  lines  of  the  poor, 
blind  girl,  filled  with  joy  by  the  sight,  from  this  love,  into  that 
* 'within  the  vail:" 

"Could  we  with  ink  the  ocean  fill, 

And  were  the  sky  of  parchment  made 
Were  every  blade  of  grass  a  quill, 

And  every  man  a  scribe  by  trade; 
To  write  the  love  of  God  with  ink 
Would  drain  the  ocean  dry; 
Nor  would  the  scroll 
Contain  the  whole, 
Though  spread  from  sky  to  sky." 

Eighth.  Through  the  atonement,  set  upon  everything  we  do, 
from  the  least  to  the  greatest,  secretly  or  openly,  we  see  the 
all-seeing  eye  of  the  Moral  Governor  and  Judge.  In  our  strict 
accountability  for  "all  these  things,"  met  in  the  atonement, 
we  have  this  manifest.  Through  the  atonement  rings  in  our 
ears: 

"If  I  ascend  into  heaven,  thou  art  there: 
If  I  make  the  under  world  my  bed,  lo,  thou  art  there. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  HI 

If  I  should  take  the  wings  of  the  morning. 
Should  dwell  in  ihe  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea; 
There  also  would  thy  hand  lead  me, 
And  thy  right  hand  would  hold  me. 
And  if  I  say,  Only  let  darkness  cover  me, 
And  the  light  about  me  be  night; 
Even  darkness  will  not  hide  from  thee, 
And  night  will  shine  as  the  day; 
Darkness  is  as  the  light." 

— Ps.  cxxxix.  7-12 — Conanfs  Ver. 

Ninth.  The  atonement  teaches  that  the  moral  law  is  uni- 
versal. In  the  atonement  being  for  all  mankind,  we  see  the 
reign  of  the  moral  law  over  white  and  black — of  every  color, 
every  kindred,  tribe,  nation  and  tongue;  of  all  ages  and  all 
lands. 

Tenth.  In  the  atonement  we  have  the  universal  moral  nat- 
ure and  brotherhood  of  man.  "For  all  have  sinned,  and  come 
short  of  the  glory  of  God. " — Rom.  iii.  23.  In  the  design  and 
the  adaptation  of  the  atonement  for  all,  we  have  the  same  moral 
nature  and  moral  condition  of  men;  and  in  this  sameness  of 
nature  and  condition,  we  have  preached  to  us:  "God  hath 
made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  to  dwell  upon  the  face  of 
the  earth." — Acts  xvii.  26.  This  brotherhood,  scattered  and 
alienated  by  sin,  the  atonement  reunites  in  one  family  and  in 
one  band  of  love.  "There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  circum- 
cision nor  uncircumcision,  Barbarian,  Scythian,  bond  nor  free : 
but  Christ  is  all,  and  in  all." — Col.  iii.  11.  It  is  related  of  the 
Duke  of  Wellington  that,  at  the  "  Lord's  Table"  at  his  parish 
church,  a  very  poor  old  man,  having  gone  up  the  opposite  aisle 
and  reaching  the  communion  rail,  knelt  down  by  the  side  of  the 
Duke,  when  some  one,  coming  and  touching  him  on  the 
shoulder,  whispered  to  him  to  move  farther  away  until  the  Duke 
had  received  the  bread  and  wine,  the  eagle  eye  and  quick  ear 
of  the  great  commander  catching  the  meaning  of  that  touch  and 


112  OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

whisper,  he  clasped  the  poor,  old  man's  hand,  held  him  to  pre- 
vent his  moving  away,  and,  in  a  reverential  manner,  exclaimed 
in  a  distinct  undertone:  "Do  not  move,  for  we  are  all  equal 
here." 

Eleventh.  The  atonement  delivers  and  secures  man  from  a 
guilty  conscience  and  from  despair.  Having  satisfied  the  law, 
into  his  heart  it  pours  peace  and  light;  though  friendless  and 
outcast,  it  gives  him  "the  Friend  above  all  others'' — reception 
into  the  Father's  house.  To  the  saved  it  is,  "All  things  work 
together  for  good." — Rom.  viii.  28.  From  melancholy  it 
saved  poor  Cowper,  and  electrified  his  pen  with  the  divine 
truth  that  fills  his  hymns.  Goethe's  cruel  dagger,  which,  in 
despair,  he  placed  by  his  bed  to  let  out  his  life  before  morn- 
ing, it  threw  away,  and  lighted  up  his  heart  with  light  and 
filled  it  with  joy  that  made  life  cheerful  and  happy,  and  his 
literature  pure  from  the  fearful  poison  of  skepticism  with  which 
it  had  been  filled.  In  the  language  of  an  infidel,  Lecky :  "The 
power  of  the  love  of  Christ  has  been  displayed  in  the  most 
heroic  pages  of  Christian  martyrdom,  in  the  most  pathetic 
pages  of  Christian  resignation,  in  the  tenderest  pages  of  Chris- 
tian charity.  It  was  shown  by  the  martyrs  who  sank  beneath 
the  fangs  of  wild  beasts,  extending,  to  the  last  moment,  their 
arms  in  the  form  of  the  cross  they  loved;  who  ordered  their 
chains  to  be  buried  with  them  as  the  insignia  of  their  warfare; 
who  looked  with  joy  upon  their  ghastly  wounds,  because  they 
had  been  received  for  Christ;  who  welcomed  death  as  the 
bridegroom  welcomes  the  bride,  because  it  would  bring  them 
nearer  to  him." — Hist.  Europ.  Mor.^  Vol.  II.,  p.  10.  Of  the 
influence  of  this  love,  says  Lecky:  "To  them  the  universe 
was  transfigured  by  love.  All  its  phenomena,  all  its  catas- 
trophes were  read  in  a  new  light,  were  endued  with  a  new 
significance,  acquired  a  religious  sanctity.  Christianity  offered 
a  deeper  consolation  than  any  prospect  of  endless  life,  or 


OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  II3 

millennial  glories.  It  taught  the  weary,  the  sorrowing  and 
the  lonely,  to  look  up  to  heaven  and  to  say,  'Thou  God  car- 
est  for  me.'" — Idem^  pp.  ii,  12.  "God  commendeth  his 
love  towards  us,  in  that,  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ 
died  for  us." — Rom.  v.  8. 

Twelfth.  The  atonement  presents  our  duty  towards  the  fall- 
en, needy  and  suffering.  The  great,  loving,  pitying,  helping 
heart  it  lays  against  ours,  pours  into  ours.  "Now  if  any  man 
have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his." — Rom.  viii. 
9.  As  he  loved  all,  pitied  all,  helped  all,  was  the  "good 
Samaritan,"  so  must  we  be;  "for  the  servant  is  not  greater 
than  his  Lord."  Jesus  poured  out  his  love  into  our  bitter  cup 
to  sweeten  it;  so  ought  we  to  pour  ours  into  the  cup  of  others. 

From  the  throne  of  the  atoning  God,  through  the  atone- 
ment, flow  all  these  twelve  virtues  "for  the  healing  of  the 
nations;"  the  atonement  is  the  fountain  of  "the  river  of  water 
of  life.'' — Rev.  xxii.  i.     See  Isa.  liii. 

Two  objections  to  the  atonement  here  call  for  notice. 

I.  "It  is  wrong  for  the  innocent  to  suffer  for  the  guilty." 
Reply,  first.  The  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  not,  in  the 
sense  here  objected,  the  suffering  "of  the  innocent  for  the 
guilty."  The  atonement  is  the  legal  oneness  of  Christ  with 
his  people.  He  was  born  under  the  law,  under  their  curse. 
See  Gal.  iv.  4,  5.  "He  was  acting  for  his  people,  and  they 
were  representatively  in  him.  The  entrance  of  Christ's  sin- 
less humanity  with  the  law  in  his  heart,  became  the  central 
point  of  all  time,  to  which  previous  ages  looked  forward,  and 
after  ages  look  back.  He  was  the  living  law,  the  personal 
law— an  event  with  a  far  more  important  bearing  than  any 
other  that  ever  occurred.  It  was  the  world's  new  creation. 
It  is  made  ours  not  less  truly  than  if  we  ourselves  had  ren- 
dered it,  in  CONSEQUENCE  OF  THE  LEGAL  ONENESS  FOUND  BE- 
TWEEN US  AND  HIM.     Not  that  in  the  Lord's  experience  the 


I  14  OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

personal  was  merged  into  the  official,  for  he  had  not,  ana 
could  not  have,  any  of  the  feelings  which  stand  connected 
with  personal  guilt.  He  was  always  conscious  of  inward  sin- 
lessnesswhen  the  sin-bearer  and  curse-bearer  in  our  stead." — ■ 
Smeaton  on  the  Atoftement,  Vol.  II.,  p.  124.  So,  "For  he  made 
him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin;  that  we  might  be  made 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  him." — 2  Cor.  v.  21.  On  this 
passage,  Smeaton  well  says:  ''The  words,  strictly  considered, 
therefore,  mean  that  by  God's  appointment  he  was  made  sin, 
not  in  mere  semblance,  but  in  reality;  not  before  men,  but 
before  God,  on  the  great  foundation  of  federal  unity  between 
liim  and  his  people." — Smeaton  on  the  Atonement,  Vol.  II, p. 
226.  *'The  sin-bearing  capacity  of  Jesus  proceeds  on  several 
presuppositions :  a  community  of  nature,  and  a  federal  rela- 
tion between  the  surety  and  those  in  whose  behalf  his  work 
was  undertaken.  Without  these,  no  basis  could  have  existed 
for  imputation  or  punishment;  for  penal  suffering  had  its 
formal  ground  in  guilt." — Idem,  p.  228.  See,  also,  God  with 
Us,  by  Hovcy,  p.  133;  Martin  on  the  Atone?ne?it,  pp.  40-47. 

Being  born  under  the  law,  born  in  our  place,  one  with  us 
in  the  eye  of  the  law,  he  was  officially  (not  personally)  under 
our  curse.  In  no  other  sense  did  Christ  suffer  the  innocent 
for  the  guilty. 

Second.  If  it  should  be  urged  that  this  is  "the  innocent  suf- 
fering for  the  guilty,"  I  reply,  substitutionary  suffering  is  not 
unusual.  The  following  facts  show  the  world  is  governed  by 
such  substitution:  a.  In  the  place  of  our  perishing  bodies 
animals  have  to  perish  for  our  food.  Whether  animal  or  veg- 
etable life,  life  is  continually  substituted  for  life.  b.  As  one 
animal  feeds  on  another,  life  is  substituted  for  life.  c.  In  our 
late  war,  those  who  had  nothing  to  do  with  causing  the  war 
suffered  for  the  sin  of  others.  Many  of  those  who  caused 'it 
were  sleeping  in  their  graves  while  their  children  were  wiping 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  II5 

out  their  national  guilt  with  their  own  blood,  d.  The  volun- 
teers died  upon  the  battle-field  for  those  who  remained  at 
home.  e.  The  man  who  was  drafted  and  furnished  a  "sub- 
stitute" died  in  the  death  of  his  substitute —as  his  substitute 
died  for  him.  f.  One  nation  wrongs  another.  In  a  bloody 
war  the  wronged  nation  makes  the  other  wipe  out  the  wrong 
in  blood;  yet  many  of  those  who  wipe  it  out  are  personally 
innocent,  having  had  nothing,  personally,  to  do  with  origin- 
ating the  wrong,  g.  The  surety  in  the  law  of  our  land  often 
suffers  in  paying  the  debt  of  the  one  for  whom  he  is  surety. 
This,  too,  when  the  principal  has  sinfully  let  him  pay  the 
debt.  These  seven  instances  of  substitutionary  laws  ought  to 
make  one  careful  how  he  disclaims  against  substitution.  We 
are  all,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  in  both  moral  and  material 
things,  dependent  on  others;  they  live/^r  us,  and  we  live  on 
them. 

The  Guest  in  the  statesman  of  Plato  remarks:  "It  is  diffi- 
cult to  fully  exhibit  greater  things  without  the  use  of  patterns." 
Lord  Bacon  remarks  that,  "As  hieroglyphics  come  before  let- 
ters, so  parables  come  before  arguments.  And,  even  now,  if 
any  one  wishes  to  let  in  new  light  on  any  subject  into  men's 
minds,  ...  he  must  still  go  the  same  way,  and  call  in 
the  aid  of  similitudes."  Thus,  throughout  the  universe,  the 
Lord  has  given  us  these  patterns  or  similitudes  of  the  great 
atonement.     Thus  Milton  says : 

"The  earth 
Is  but  the  shadow  of  Heaven  and  things  therein, 
Each  to  the  other  like,  more  than  on  earth  is  thought." 

That  these  illustrations,  in  all  things,  are  like  the  atonement 
is  not  claimed. 

Again :  Let  us  remember,  as  Hume  confessed,  and  as  every 
one  must  confess,  that  we  know,  of  ourselves,  but  very  little 


Il6  OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

of  these  great  things.  Let  us  remember  that  we  are  fallible. 
He  who  sets  himself  up  and  says  that  he  may  not  be  wrong 
in  this  objection  to  the  atonement,  sets  himself  up  as  an  infal- 
lible Pope.  To  tell  which  is  the  worse  Pope,  an  infallible 
infidel  Pope  or  an  infallible  Romisli  Pope,  is  difficult.  The 
claim  of  each  is  a  better  evidence  of  his  being  a  poor,  erring 
creature  than  it  is  of  his  wisdom. 

2.  It  is  objected  that,  in  cold  blood,  an  outlaw,  with  a  shot- 
gun, murders  "a  good  moral  man,"  is  sentenced  to  die  for 
his  crime,  repents,  goes  to  heaven,  while  the  man  he  murdered 
went  to  hell. 

In  reply  to  this — First.  Consider  what  sent  "the  good 
moral  man"  to  hell.  a.  The  objection  seems  to  assume  that 
the  shot-gun  sent  him  to  hell.  Verily,  this  is  shot-gun  the- 
ology. It  is  a  new  discovery  in  ethics,  that  shot-guns  send 
men  to  hell!  b.  The  ''good  man's"  sins  sent  him  to  hell. 
If  his  sins  merited  hell,  who  shall  rebel  or  protest  against  his 
receiving  justice,  whether  he  was  murdered  or  died  a  natural 
death.  That  his  sins  sent  him  to  hell  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that,  unless  he  was  fearfully  self-conceited,  were  he  living,  he 
would  not  claim  perfection.  Yet,  so  far  as  he  was  imperfect, 
he  was  a  sinner.  Again :  That  his  sins  sent  him  to  hell  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  all  must  agree  to  David's  language: 
''I  have  seen  an  end  of  all  perfection." — Ps.  cxix.  96. 

It  is,  again,  evident  from  the  universal  testimony  of  Scrip- 
ture, that  ''All  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of 
God."  "Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no 
flesh  h^  justified  in  his  sight." — Rom.  iii.  23,  20.  Again:  That 
he  was  sent  to  hell  for  his  sins  is  evident  from  the  fact  that, 
nowhere  in  the  Bible  or  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  as  held 
by  the  orthodox  world,  is  there  anything  implying  that  good 
men — sinless  men — are  sent  to  hell.  c.  The  "good  man"  had 
opportunity,  all  his  Hfe,  to  be  saved  through  the  atonement. 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  II7 

He  had  rejected  God's  offer  of  mercy  to  save  him.      He  was 
lost  because  he  would  not  be  saved. 

Let  it,  then,  be  remembered  that  this  "good  man"  was  not 
a  good  man  according  to  the  holiness  of  the  law;  that  he  was 
sent  to  hell  deservedly,  for  sin;  and  that  he  had  always  re- 
fused the  atonement — God's  mercy. 

Secofid.   Consider  the  case  of  the  murderer. 

I.  There  is  no  promise  anywhere  in  the  Bible  that  any  one 
may  sin  till  death,  then  repent,  and  be  saved,  a.  In  the 
Scriptures  all  the  invitations  and  promises  are  for  to-day,  Man 
is  warned  that  to-morrow  is  very  uncertain  for  his  salvation. 
b.  This  is  emphasized  by  the  fact,  that  few  over  middle  age 
ever  are  saved,  c.  And  by  the  uncertainty  of  death-bed  re- 
pentance. That  scarcely  one  in  one  hundred  of  those  who 
have  made  profession  on  what  they  thought  were  their  death- 
beds, ever  proved  their  profession  genuine  by  a  better  life, 
after  their  recovery,  is  a  settled  fact.  And  the  vast  majority 
of  these  never  had  any  recollection  of  their  'brilliant  conver- 
sion"' experienced  on  their  sick-beds.  Dr.  Jackson,  of  Bos- 
ton, an  eminent  Christian  physician,  observed  this,  and  was 
led  to  keep  an  account  of  cases  who  professed  conversion  on 
sick-beds.  Out  of  three  hundred,  of  which  he  kept  account, 
only  two  proved  their  conversion  genuine  on  their  recovery. 
Hexould  not  say  that  these  two  had  not  a  silent  hope  before 
sickness.  Abraham  Booth  kept  a  similar  diary ;  and  only  two 
in  three  hundred  proved  their  conversion  genuine  on  recovery. 
A  London  missionary  kept  a  record  of  two  thousand  such 
cases;  on  recovery,  only  two  per  cent,  of  these  proved  their 
conversion  genuine.  The  probability  is  that  most  or  all  of 
these  were  converted  before  sickness. — J.  R.  Graves,  LL.D. 
These  facts  give  little  room  to  believe  that  men  who  have  all 
their  lifetime  spurned  a  blood-bought  mercy  can,  in  their  last 
hour,  to  escape  hell,  receive  it.     And  there  is  absolutely  not 


Il8  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

a  shadow  of  promise  in  the  whole  Bible  of  such  a  thing. 
The  assumption  that  this  jail  or  gallows  repentance  is  gener- 
ally, if  ever,  genuine^  and  saves  men,  is  not  a  doctrine  of  the 
atonement — of  the  Bible,  but  of  men's  fancies.  The  thief  on 
the  cross  was  an  exception.  He  probably  never  before  had 
an  opportunity  of  accepting  the  Savior.  But  these  criminals 
are  raised  under  the  gospel. 

2.  But,  suppose  some  of  these  outlaws  are  thus  saved.  If 
any  of  them  are  saved,  they  are  saved :  a.  Upon  a  genuine  re- 
morse and  turning  away  with  all  their  hearts  from  sin.  b. 
They  are  saved  in  just  the  way  the  so-called  "good  man" 
could  have  been  saved,  c.  They  are  saved  by  being  made 
holy;  so  that  their  lives,  on  earth,  or  anywhere  else,  could 
never  again  be  criminal,  but  good.  d.  They  are  saved,  not 
in  violation  of  law,  but  by  the  Savior  having  suffered  for  them. 
Can  any  man  object  to  such  a  salvation?  Is  it  not  rather  a 
reason  for  glorying  in  the  cross — the  cross  that  can  make  a 
pure,  righteous  man  out  of  such  a  character?  Would  you 
rather  prefer  that  this  criminal  should  never  be  a  better  man  ? 

That  God  saves  such,  if  possible  to  do  so,  there  is  no  doubt. 
But  if  he  does,  it  is  not  revealed  in  connection  with  the  atone- 
ment; and  facts  seem  to  disprove  his  doing  so.  Remember, 
the  atonement  must  be  judged  by  what  the  Bible  alone  makes 
it. 

Third.  The  infidel's  doctrine  here :  i.  According  to  the 
infidel  doctrine  of  no  such  thing  as  sin,  while  the  outlaw  vio- 
lated custom  or  manners,  he  violated  no  moral  law — he  com- 
mitted no  sin  and  no  crime.  2.  According  to  the  infidel 
doctrine  of  no  future,  both  the  murdered  and  the  murderer 
went  to  the  sa^ne  reward — nothing.  3.  According  to  the  in- 
fidel doctrine  there  was  no  possible  punishment,  beyond  time, 
for  the  murderer.  If  he  escaped  the  law  here,  no  punishment 
ever  for  him.     Read,  in  this  connection.  Chapter  III. 


OLD   TESTAMENT  ETHICS   VINDICATED. 


119 


At  the  close  of  an  infidel  lecture,  a  German  came  forward 
and  requested  a  private  conversation.  The  lecturer  consented. 
''Ish  de  doctrine  you  breach  here  to-night  true?"  ''Cer- 
tainly true,"  replied  the  lecturer.  "Vel,  den,"  rejoined  the 
German,  *'pe  sure  you  must  keep  it  a  secret  from  Chake 
Tavis."  ''Why,  so,"  replied  the  lecturer.  "Pecause,"  said 
the  old  man,  "Chake  Tavis  has  stole  one-half  of  my  smit  tools 
already;  and  if  he  find  out  dare  is  no  hell,  or  punishment,  pe 
sure  he  will  come  and  steal  de  palance." 

We  may  add  another  answer  to  this  objection  against  the 
atonement,  viz :  If  the  atonement  were  based  on  principles 
of  wrong,  surely  its  believers,  who  are  the  only  ones,  as  we 
have  shown,  who  steadfastly  maintain  the  moral  nature  of 
man,  the  existence  of  the  moral  law,  the  responsibility  of  man 
and  the  existence  of  sin  would  as  readily  recognize — if  there 
were  such — the  moral  wrong  in  the  atonement  as  those  do 
who  know  nothing  of  moral  law,  man's  moral  nature,  his  re- 
sponsibility, and  the  existence  of  sin.  Strange,  indeed,  that 
those  who  know  nothing  of  such  a  thing  as  sin — moral  wrong 
— should  be  the  only  ones  who  can  find  moral  wrong  in  the 
atonement ! 

We  might  farther  present,  as  an  answer  to  the  objection, 
the  acknowledged  good  fruit  of  the  atonement  by  even  infi- 
dels. Though  the  atonement  is  the  origin  and  power  of  Chris- 
tianity, there  is  no  respectable  infidel  scholar  who  calls  m 
question  that  Christianity  has  been  of  inestimable  benefit  to 
mankind.     See  such  as  Lecky,  Buckle,  ct  al. 

The  atonement,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  is  Jesus 
Christ — "wounded  for  our  transgressions,  bruised  for  our  ini- 
quities; the  Lord  having  "laid  on  him  the  iniquities  of  us  all." 
— Isa.  liii.  In  Jesus  Christ  and  his  atonement  we,  therefore, 
have  peace,  encouragement  and  help  to  virtue;  redemption 
from  hell  to  heaven,  from  sin  to  righteousness,  from  shame  to 


I20  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

glory.  Every  basal  plank  to  Old  Testament  Ethics  is,  thus, 
dependent  upon  Jesus  Christ  and  his  atonement.  While  some  of 
the  basal  facts  to  Old  Testament  Ethics  might,  in  some  measure, 
ameliorate  man's  ethical  life  upon  earth,  without  the  atonement, 
without  the  Man  of  sorrows,  lifting  up  the  sinful  world,  these 
facts  would  have  upon  ethics  scarcely  a  perceptible  influence. 
As  Harless  remarks :  '  'Last  of  all,  the  whole  barrier  which  men 
erected  in  their  laws  and  worship  against  moral  degeneracy, 
crumbles  down  in  the  hands  of  those  very  parties  for  whom 
it  ought  to  hold  good." — Sys.  Chr.  Eth.,p.  94.  As  Lecky 
confesses:  "Philosophy  was  admi-rably  fitted  to  dignify  and 
ennoble,  but  altogether  impotent  to  regenerate  mankind.  It 
did  much  to  encourage  virtue,  but  little  or  nothing  to  restrain 
vice."  Then  Lecky  turns  to  Christianity:  " It  was  reserved 
for  Christianity  to  present  to  the  world  an  ideal  character, 
which,  through  all  the  •  changes  of  eighteen  centuries,  has 
inspired  the  hearts  of  men  with  an  impassioned  love;  has 
shown  itself  capable  of  acting  on  all  ages,  nations,  tempera- 
ments and  conditions;  has  been  not  only  the  highest  pattern 
for  virtue,  but  the  strongest  incentive  to  its  practice ;  and  has 
exercised  so  deep  an  influence,  that  it  may  be  truly  said  that 
the  simple  record  of  three  short  years  of  active  life  has  done 
more  to  regenerate  and  to  soften  mankind  than  all  the  dis- 
quisitions of  philosophers  and  all  the  exhortations  of  moralists. 
This  has,  indeed,  been  the  well-spring  of  whatever  is  best  and 
purest  in  Christian  life." — Hisi.  Europ.  Mor.,  Vol.  II., pp.  4,  9. 
But,  though  overlooked  by  Mr.  Lecky,  this  is  equally  Old 
Testament  Ethics.  In  the  types,  shadows,  etc.,  Christ  was 
preached  to  them  of  olden  time.  So  that  both  Christ  and  his 
apostles  preached  this  same  "well-spring  of  whatever  is  best 
and  purest  in  the  Christian  life"  from  the  Old  Testament. 
"Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day:  and  he  saw 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  121 

it,  and  was  glad Before  Abraham  was,  I  am." — 

John  viii.  56,  58.  ''For  had  ye  beHeved  Moses,  ye  would 
have  believed  me :  for  he  wrote  of  me.  But  if  ye  believe  not 
his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my  words." — John  v.  46, 
47.  "Search  the  Scriptures  [only  the  Old  Testament  was 
then  written] ;  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eternal  life :  and 
they  are  they  which  testify  of  me." — John  v.  39.  "All  Scrip- 
ture [only  the  Old  then]  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and 
is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  in- 
struction in  righteousness :  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  per- 
fect, thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works." — 2  Tim.  iii. 
16,  17.  "And  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink;  for 
they  drank  of  that  spiritual  Rock  that  followed  them:  and 
that  Rock  was  Christ." — i  Cor.  x.  4.  In  no  plainer  language 
could  we  be  told  that  the  "well-spring  of  whatever  is  best  and 
purest  in  the  Christian  life"  was  in  Old  Testament  days  "the 
same  spiritual  drink."  On  Pentecost — see  Acts  ii. — Peter 
preached  that  great  revival  sermon  from  the  Old  Testamenl. 
To  the  eunuch,  Philip  preached  Christ  from  Isa.  liii. — com- 
pare Acts  viii.  with  Isa.  liii.  As  but  few  of  such  innumer- 
able facts,  see  Acts  xvii.  11 ;  xviii.  28;  xxvi.  6—27;  Galatians, 
especially  the  third  and  fourth  chapters,  and  that  galaxy  of 
Hebrew  saints  in  Heb.  xi. 

While  so  many  other  constituencD  of  Old  Testament  Ethics 
are  so  important,  that  to  place  them  here  in  its  basis  would 
hardly,  if  at  all,  be  improper,  this  v/ill  close  the  classification 
of  the  constituents  to  the  foundation.  That  the  eleven,  class- 
ified in  this  chapter  as  basal  to  Old  Testament  Ethics,  prove 
Old  Testament  Ethics  to  be  not  of  this  world  but  of  heaven, 
the  writer  believes  with  such  belief  that  he  would  rest  his  all 
for  time  and  eternity  upon.  Were  there  not  another  line 
added  to  this  work,  so  forcibly  do  the  eleven  preceding  points 


122  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

establish  the  ethics  of  the  Old  Testament  that  this  book  de- 
serves the  title  of  ''Old  Testament  Ethics  Vindicated." 

Having  pointed  out  the  foundation  of  Old  Testament  Ethics, 
we  are  prepared  to  advance  in  the  investigation. 


OLD  TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED.  1 23 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   SABBATH  AN    ESSENTIAL  PART  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  ETHICS. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  inestimable  blessings  of  the 
Sabbath  : 

1.  The  Sabbath  calls  man's  attention  to  the  spiritual  as 
above  the  material  world.  It  calls  attention  to  spirit  above 
matter;  eternity  above  time;  to  home  above  the  camping- 
place  on  our  short  pilgrimage  to  eternity.  Men  may  so  place 
their  affections  on  the  material  things — of  this  world — that 
their  souls  become  as  gross  as  the  world  itself. 

2.  The  Sabbath  affords  opportunity  for  religious  instruction, 
meditation  and  devotion.  Not  that  our  religion  is  to  be  only 
a  ''Sunday  religion;"  but  that  one  day  in  the  seven  for  reli- 
gious culture,  exclusively,  is  indispensable  to  rehgion  for  other 
days. 

"The  Sabbath  .  .  .  recollecting  of  the  personal  spirit 
from  the  distractions  of  the  outer  life  into  the  calm  of  medi- 
tation; man  is  not  at  liberty  to  completely  merge  himself  into 
earthly,  temporal  cares ;  should  constantly  have  before  him, 
in  all  his  temporal  activity,  also  the  eternal  as  the  true  and 
highest  good.  The  heathen  either  buries  himself  up  in  tem- 
poral activity  and  enjoyment,  or  contemptuously  turns  himself 
away  from  the  same;  the  saint  of  the  Old  Testament  lives 
and  acts  in  God's  good-created  world,  but  does  not  merge 
himself  into  it,  withdraws  himself  into  the  Sabbath  repose  of 
a  heart  in  communion  with  God.     In  the  simple  feature  of 


124  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

Sabbath  observance  itself,  the  Old  Testament  morality  presents 
itself  in  sharp  contrast  to  all  heathen  ethics  and  places  the 
moral  task  of  man  higher  than  the  latter." — Wuttke' s  Eth., 
Vol  L,pp.  155,  156. 

Infidels,  denying  there  is  any  more  immortality  or  spiritual- 
ity in  man  than  in  the  tadpole,  or  clod  that  rumbles  in  upon 
his  coffin,  can  not  see  any  use  for  the  Sabbath. 

3.  The  Sabbath  affords  opportunity  for  rest  for  the  mind 
and  the  body. 

4.  The  Sabbath  affords  opportunity  for  rest  for  the  laboring 
animals. 

5.  The  Sabbath  is  a  priceless  boon  for  especially  the  poor. 
a.  It  secures  to  them  the  privileges  of  family  life.  Six  days 
the  laboring  and  the  business  men  are  deprived  of  the  privil- 
ege of  family  communion.  Were  it  not  for  the  Sabbath,  they 
would  soon  need  an  introduction  to  their  own  families.  But 
on  the  Sabbath  they  can  commune  with  their  families  around 
the  fireside,  in  all  the  privileges  of  home,  and  in  the  sanctu- 
ary, b.  It  cultivates  domestic  love.  This  guards  the  sacred- 
ness  of  the  family  from  intrusion  and  destruction  by  the 
tempter.  When  we  remember  that  where  the  Sabbath  is  de- 
stroyed by  confinement  to  seven  days'  business  or  labor,  there 
are  so  many  "scandals,"  we  need  not  be  surprised.  For  the 
family  is  almost  the  same  as  broken  up;  the  yearning  for  com- 
panionship becomes  only  a  temptation,  to  seek  the  gratifica- 
tion of  its  wants  in  "vanity  fair"  and  at  the  table  of  forbidden 
fruit.  This  may  be  regarded  as  an  unwise  view  of  things. 
But  let  history  speak.  "But  we  must  revert  for  a  moment 
to  France,  which  at  one  time  exchanged  Popery  for  atheism, 
the  Sabbath  for  the  decade.  The  experiment  showed  that 
infidelity  was,  even  more  than  a  corrupt  religion,  detrimental 
to  the  family.  What  the  institution  suffered  from  the  worship 
of  a  strumpet,  let  the  following  facts  declare :  The  National 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  125 

Convention  enacted  a  law  permitting  divorce,  of  which  there 
were  registered  within  about  a  year  and  a  half  20,000  cases;  and 
within  three  months  562  cases,  or  one  to  every  three  marriages 

in  Paris  alone Infancy  was  committed  to  the  tender 

mercies  of  State  nurseries,  in  which  nine  out  of  ten  died ;  a 
system  which,  by  infanticide  and  disease,  had,  in  fifty  years, 
reduced  by  one-half  the  population  of  the  Sandwich  Islands, 
and  were  it  to  be  universal  and  permanent,  would,  in  a  few 
centuries,  nearly  depopulate  the  earth.  The  worship  of  (athe- 
ism) the  Goddess  of  Reason,  who  had  been  able  to  bestow 
nothing  of  that  endowment  on  her  votaries,  was  abolished, 
and  the  law  of  divorce  was  modified,  and  then  repealed."  But 
the  chilling  effect  of  infidelity  was  not  destroyed.  ''A  chill- 
ing egotism  dried  up  all  the  springs  of  sentiment.  The  do- 
mestic affections  are  extinct.  Domestic  crimes,  parricides, 
the  murder  of  husbands  by  their  wives,  and  wives  by  their 
husbands,  are  almost,"  says  a  French  writer,  "as  common  as 
larcenies  were  wont  to  be." — The  Sabbath^  by  Giljiilan, p.  232. 
Greg's  ''Literary  and  Social  Judgments" — Greg  is  an  infidel — 
confirms  this  picture  of  France — the  effect  of  infidelity.  So 
do  Le  Play  and  others.  ''When  the  code  of  September  25, 
1 791  (infidel),  for  the  first  time  among  a  civilized  people,  es- 
tablished the  principle  that  seduction  is  neither  a  crime  nor 
the  violation  of  any  contract,  manners  at  once  received  a  sad 

blow It  is  so  incorporated  in  the  population,  that 

marriage  became  more  and  more  sterile,  while  there  is  one 
illegitimate  in  every  three  births.  .  .  .  The  idle  subsidize 
an  army  of  courtesans,  the  workmen  renounce  marriage,  and, 
in  certain  classes,  concubinage  has  in  a  manner  become  a 
professional  business." — Le  Hafs  Org.  of  Labor ^  pp.  163,  164 
— a  comparatively  recent  work.  Under  the  influence  of  the 
London  City  Mission,  between  1 859-1 860:  "Shops  closed 
on  the  Lord's  Day,  293;  persons  who  have  become  commu- 


126  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

nicants,  1,236;  backsliders  restored  to  Church  communion, 
253;  drunkards  reclaimed,  1,102;  fallen  females  rescued, 
524;  unmarried  couples  induced  to  marry,  300;  family  praye^ 
commenced,  587.  So  in  Scotland,  Polynesia,  etc." — Gil- 
Jillun  on  the  Sabbath,  p.  236.  "In  NewHampshire  there  are 
two  neighborhoods — one  of  six  families,   the  other  of  five. 

The  six  families never  visited  the  sanctuary. 

Some  of  them  totally  disregarded  the  Sabbath,  and  all  event- 
ually formed  the  habit.  In  the  course  of  years,  five  were 
broken  up  by  the  separation  of  husband  and  wife,  and  the 
other  father  becoming  a  thief,  and  fleeing  to  parts  unknown. 
Eight  or  nine  of  the  parents  became  drunkards,  most  of 
whom  have  found  a  drunkard's  grave.  One  committed 
suicide,  and  nearly  all  have  suffered  for  the  wants  of  life. 
Of  some  forty-five  descendants,  about  twenty  are  known  to 
be  notorious  drunkards,  jockeys  or  gamblers.  Four  or  five 
are,  or  have  been,  in  State's  prison.  One  fell  in  a  duel.  Some 
entered  the  army  and  have  never  been  heard  from;  others 
have  gone  to  sea  and  never  returned.  And  only  a  small 
number  remain  within  the  knowledge  of  their  friends.  Some 
are  in  the  alms-house.  Only  one  of  the  whole  is  known  to 
have  become  a  Christian.  The  others  were  all  sure  to  be 
seen,  riding  or  walking  to  the  house  of  God.  .  .  .  They  all 
lived  in  peace  and  were  prospered  in  their  labors.  A  large 
number  were  reared  up  around  them,  numbering  now,  with 

their  descendants,  from  two  to  three  hundred In 

only  one  instance  has  there  been  committed  by  any  of  their 
descendants  a  crime,  which  was  followed  by  a  speedy  and 
deep  repentance ;  and  but  one  is  known  to  be  intemperate. 
Some  of  them  are  ministers  of  the  gospel.  One  is  a  mis- 
sionary to  China.  A  number  are  supporters  and  officers  in 
churches.  There  has  been  among  them  no  separation  of  hus- 
band and  wife,  except  by  death,  and  no  suflering  for  want  of 


OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  1 27 

the  necessaries  of  life.  The  heads  of  the  families  lived  to  a 
good  old  age,  and  with  a  score  or  more  of  their  descendants, 
have  gone  down  to  the  grave  in  peace,  most  of  whom  have 
left  evidence  that  they  died  in  the  Lord.  The  homestead  of 
a  number  of  the  families  is  now  in  the  hands  of  the  third 
generation.  A  colony  has  been  planted  by  the  descendants 
in  the  West,  maintaining  the  institutions  of  their  fathers,  and 
now  reaping  the  benefits  of  Sabbath-keeping  habits  and  prin- 
ciples."— Gilfillan  on  the  Sabbath^  pp.  238,  239. 

To  multiply  statements  of  such  facts  is  easy ;  they  abound 
on  every  hand,  in  every  age  and  country. 

c.  The  Sabbath  is  a  constant  rebuke  to  the  worldly  capitalist, 
and  a  security  against  his  oppressive  hand.  To  him  it  says : 
''Though  you  overload  the  poor  with  burdens  during  six  days, 
you  shall  leave  him  a  free  man  one  day  in  seven.  Then  he 
shall  have  opportunity  for  social,  family  and  religious  com- 
munion— rest"  But  where  there  is  no  day  in  the  seven  which 
the  laboring  man  can  call  his  own,  he  had  better  be  dead — 
better  have  never  been  born;  he  is  the  most  abject  slave. 

The  Sabbath  teaches  the  capitalist  that  his  laborers  have 
souls,  privileges  and  rights  which  he  must  respect.  This  re- 
spect, cultivated  in  the  breast  of  the  capitalist  for  his  laborers, 
renders  him  humane.  It  influences  him  to  treat  his  laborers, 
not  as  a  cruel  driver  treats  a  brute,  but  as  those  having  equal 
rights  with  himself.  This  leads  to  fairness  and  honesty  in  all 
his  relations  with  his  employes.  Communism,  and  all  the 
great  labor  questions  that  to-day  shake  our  country  to  its  very 
foundation,  have  their  origin  in  the  fact  that  the  Sabbath  is 
so  near  lost  to  us.  The  capitalist  has  his  heel  upon  his  em- 
ployes; the  employes  are  in  suspicion  and  rebellion;  and  this 
state  of  things  will  never  be  better  till  we  restore  the  Sabbath. 
On  the  contrary,  it  will  grow  worse  as  Sabbath  desecration 


128  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

grows.     Religion  is  the  only  hope  of  the  working  classes. 
Yet  many  of  them  cast  it  from  them. 

Blackstone,  the  great  jurist,  says:  ''Profanation  of  the 
Lord's  Day  is  a  ninth  offense  against  God  and  religion,  pun- 
ished ...  by  law.  For,  besides  the  notorious  indecency 
and  scandal  of  permitting  any  secular  business,  ....  and 
the  corruption  of  morals  which  usually  follows  its  profanation, 
the  keeping  of  one  day  in  the  seven  holy,  as  a  time  of  relax- 
ation and  refreshment  as  well  as  public  worship,  is  of  admir- 
able service  to  a  State,  considered  merely  as  a  civil  institu- 
tion. It  humanizes,  by  the  help  of  conversation  and  society, 
the  manners  of  the  lower  classes,  which  would  otherwise 
degenerate  into  ferocity  (communism  parading  our  streets, 
etc.,  as  illustrations)  and  savage  selfishness  of  spirit;  it  enables 
the  industrious  workingman  to  pursue  his  occupation  in  the 
ensuing  week  with  health  and  cheerfulness;  it  imprints  on 
the  minds  of  the  people  that  sense  of  their  duty  to  God  so 
necessary  to  make  them  good  citizens  (witness  the  infidelity, 
communism,  crime,  etc.,  of  our  time);  but  which  would  be 
worn  out  and  defaced  by  unremitted  continuance  of  labor, 
without  any  stated  times  of  calling  them  to  the  worship  of 
their  Maker. "  —  C/////>''j"  Blaclzstonr^  Vol.  J  I.,  p.  d^i-  Speaking 
of  the  Sabbath,  Lecky — an  infidel — says:  ''An  important 
boon  to  the  servile  classes." — Hist.  Europ.  Mor.,  Vol.  II.,  p. 

558. 

Science  has  demonstrated  the  necessity  of  the  Sabbath. 
A  few  years  ago  "an  Englishman,  engaged  in  the  manufact- 
ure of  iron,  determined  that  no  work  should  be  done  in  his 
furnaces  on  the  Sabbath.  His  books  testified  that  he  now 
made  more  iron  in  six  days  than  he  had  before  made  in  seven ; 
that  he  made  more  iron  in  a  given  time  in  proportion  to  the 
hands  employed,  and  to  the  number  and  size  of  his  furnaces, 
than  any  other  establishment  in  England,  which  was  kept  in 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED.  1 29 

operation  on  Sabbath.    This  was  due  to  the  rest  enabUng  them 
to  work  so  much  better. 

Few,  if  any,  of  the  steamers  on  the  Western  rivers  lie  by 
on  Sabbath.  Of  the  boatmen  and  firemen  who  do  not  refrain 
from  work  on  the  Sabbath,  seven  years  are  said  to  be  the 
average  hfe.  A  master  of  an  Ohio  canal  boat,  alluding  to 
the  enfeebling  influences  of  Sabbath  labor  on  the  boatmen, 
said :  "It  will  take  about  five  years  to  clear  them  off."  ''An 
eminent  statesman  of  England  attributed  the  length  of  his  life 
and  the  superiority  of  his  health  to  his  invariable  observance 
of  the  Sabbath. " —  Waylajtd's  Moral  Science,  quoted.  '  'William 
Pitt  died  of  apoplexy  at  the  early  age  of  forty-seven.  .  .  . 
Sabbath  brought  no  rest  to  him,  and  soon  the  brain  gave  signs 
of  exhaustion.  .  .  .  Under  the  high  tension,  both  brain 
and  body  perished  prematurely.  A  few  years  since,  one  of 
the  most  active  business  men  of  England  found  his  affairs  so 
extended  that  he  decided  to  devote  his  Sabbaths  to  his  ac- 
counts.^ .  .  .  Wealth  came  upon  him  like  a  flood.  He 
purchased  a  country  seat  at  the  cost  of  four  hundred  thousand 
dollars,  determining  that  he  would  now  have  rest  and  quiet. 
But  it  was  too  late.  As  he  stepped  upon  his  threshold,  after 
a  survey  of  his  late  purchase,  he  became  apoplectic.  If  his 
life  still  exists,  he  is  only  the  wreck  of  a  man." — Taken  from 
Hair s  Jour,  of  Health. 

That  profound  skeptical  scholar,  Ewald,  remarks:  "The 
Sabbath,  though  the  simplest  and  most  spiritual,  is  at  the 
same  time  the  wisest  and  most  fruitful  of  spiritual  institutions. 
Nothing  could  be  devised  which  would  both  supply  what  was 
lost  in  the  tumult  of  life,  and  effectually  turn  his  thoughts  to 
the  higher  and  the  eternal.  Thus  it  becomes  the  true  symbol 
of  the  high  religion  which  now  entered  into  the  world,  and 
the  most  eloquent  witness  to  the  greatness  of  the  human  soul 
which  first  grasped  the  idea  of  it."    For  the  following,  I  am  in- 


130  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

debted  to  President  Hovey,  of  Newton  Theological  Seminary : 
' '  In  the  time  when,  in  France,  they  believed  themselves  to 
have  abolished  all  established  customs,  .  .  .  the  seven- 
day  week  was  thrown  aside,  and  they  made  the  trial  of  the 
decade.  .  ,.  .  A  French  workman,  who  lived  at  the  time, 
said:  'The  decade  was  very  far  from  attaining  its  object;  it 
did  rather  the  contrary.  Say  what  one  will,  our  Sunday  is 
the  right  one.  When  this  was  no  more,  there  was  no  regular 
work-day.' " 

Prud'hon,  whom  no  one  would  suspicion  of  forming  his 
judgment  on  religious  grounds,  says:  ''If  the  week  is  short- 
ened by  one  day,  then  the  need  of  recreation  is  not  yet  press- 
ing; if  it  is  lengthened  by  one  day,  then  over- fatigue  results; 
if  one  gives  half  a  day  free  in  every  three  days,  it  causes  lack 
of  method  and  irregularity;  if,  on  the  contrary,  after  twelve 
days'  labor,  two  days'  holiday  are  given,  the  workman  is  ruined 
with  idleness  after  he  has  been  exhausted  with  work."  Dr. 
Paul  Niemeyer,  whose  work  on  "The  Sunday  Rest  from  the 
Standpoint  of  Physics"  (Berlni  Denickes,  publisher,  1876)  is 
crowned  with  the  first  prize  by  the  above-named  Swiss  society, 
says:  "The  length  of  time  in  which  the  elasticity  of  the  hu- 
man body  will  be  exhausted  by  service  in  the  same  calling 
and  a  full  pause  be  required,  amounts  to  six  days.  If  the 
seventh  is  likewise  spent  in  work,  it  causes  overstrain,  and, 
therefore,  gradual  ruin  of  the  active  elasticity.  Is  it,  on  the 
contrary,  devoted  to  recreation,  this  elasticity  proves  a  strength 
to  our  body  and  a  guarantee  for  far  more  important  endurance 
than  that  of  the  lifeless  machine,  which,  in  time,  wears  itself 
out.  The  body,  instead  of  growing  weary,  grows  tough;  yes, 
w^ork  itself  is  a  chalybeate  draught  and  proves  itself  more 
healthful  than  idleness."  Could  we  not,  however,  obtain  the 
same  object  without  sacrificing  a  whole  day?  Would  it  not 
be  more  just  to  work  for  seven  days  in  the  week  instead  of 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  I3I 

six,  but  to  leave  off  work  on  each  of  the  seven  days  at  a  cor- 
responding earher  hour  ?  Dr.  Niemeyer  says:  *'The  pauses 
for  rest  in  the  course  of  the  week's  work  are,  in  respect  to 
the  work,  simply  as  a  question  and  answer,  as  the  rising  and 
falling  of  a  forge.  True  recreation  will  be  only  attained  by 
a  complete  suspension  of  the  whole  working  system. "  Then 
a  whole  day  must  be  given  free,  and  this  day  must,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  lunar  system  lying  at  the  foundation  of  the  whole 
computation  of  time,  be  the  seventh.  Dr.  Niemeyer  replies 
to  this:  ''Some  years  ago,  before  the  time  of  railroads,  when 
large  freight  wagons  transported  merchandise  for  hundreds  of 
miles  from  East  to  West,  where  they  were  from  eight  to  nine 
weeks  on  the  road,  the  followmg  wager  was  entered  into  by 
the  friends  of  Sunday  rest  with  the  opponents :  Two  wagon- 
ers, with  similar  wagons,  similar  roads,  similar  loads  and 
teams,  were  to  start  on  a  Monday  morning  on  the  same  jour- 
ney; the  lover  of  the  Sunday,  with  his  team,  should  rest  each 
Sunday;  the  other,  however,  should  travel  on  that  as  on  other 
days.  .  .  .  The  daily  journey  of  the  freight  wagons  to  the 
appointed  inns  was  about  thirteen  to  eighteen  miles;  so  the 
opponent  advanced  on  the  first  Sunday  thirteen  or  eighteen 
miles  further  than  the  other,  and  so  forth.  In  the  sixth  week, 
however,  the  latter  gained  the  advantage,  and,  with  his  well- 
cared-for  horses,  came  in  and  reached  the  goal  in  time;  while 
the  beasts  of  the  former,  over-driven,  came  in  late."  This 
account  is  remarkably  instructive.  Nearly  all  competent  per- 
sons who  have  investigated  this  subject  thoroughly  have  come 
to  the  same  conclusion.  Therefore,  Macaulay  is  quite  right 
when  he  says  of  England:  "If  in  this  country  the  Sunday 
had  not,  for  the  last  four  hundred  years,  been  hallowed  as  a 
day  of  rest;  if  work  had  been  carried  on,  on  this  day,  with 
the  ax  and  spade,  hammer  and  club,  we  should  have  been  a 
much  poorer  and  less  civilized  people."    Ernest  Curtius  (Pro- 


132  OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

fessor  in  the  Philosophical  Faculty  of  Berlin  University)  ex- 
presses the  same  opinion:  ''The  Sunday  rest/'  he  says,  "has 
been  preserved  as  an  institution  which  does  not  injure  prac- 
tical activity,  but  maintains  and  increases  the  power  of  the 
people.  It  is  indispensable,  if  the  united  religious  life  of  a 
people  is  to  have  expression ;  it  is  a  continual  monition  that 
man  belongs  to  two  worlds,  and  that  he  can  not,  without 
doing  irreparable  injury  to  his  soul,  wear  himself  out  in  the 
increasing  whirl  of  the  visible  world.  Where  this  regulation 
of  life  is  kept,  it  is  the  most  beautiful  ornament  of  town  and 
country;  for  in  life,  as  in  art,  all  that  is  beautiful  and  pleasing 
depends  on  order  which  rules  every  moment  and  on  the 
rhythmic  organization  of  the  various  parts.  In  this  respect, 
the  spiritual  is  distinguished  from  the  brute  life;  and  the  soul, 
inspired,  from  the  mechanical  movement.  Therefore,  noth- 
ing is  more  lacking  in  beauty  than  a  barren  aimless  and  end- 
less work,  making  human  life  to  resemble  an  ant-hill,  where, 
day  in  and  day  out,  all  run  against  each  other  in  unresting 
hurry."  Dr.  Niemeyer  sums  up  the  result  of  his  studies: 
''Sunday  rest  is  the  first  thing  demanded  in  the  regimen  de- 
signed to  promote  quiet  and  steady  growth  of  society;  and, 
as  such,  is  more  an  intellectual  than  a  religious  arrangement. 
To  the  individual  it  gives  assurance  of  enduring  power  to 
earn  his  livelihood,  a  contented  habit  of  mind,  a  well-cared-for 
old  age;  to  the  bread  winner,  it  is  the  foundation  of  a  good 
household  economy;  to  the  government,  it  insures  peace  and 
order  in  public  life;  for  all  it  is  a  means  ot  measuring  the 
sound  sense  which  exists  among  the  people  in  general,  and 
the  advance  which  it  has  made  in  civilization." 

Sir  David  Wilkie,  -the  famous  painter,  gave  as  the  result  of 
his  observation,  that  "the  artists  who  wrought  on  Sunday  were 
soon  disqualified  from  working  at  all." 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  I33 

The  omnibus  drivers,  who  work  sixteen  hours  every  day  in 
the  week,  seldom  pass  fifty  years  of  age. 

Sir  David  Wilkie  said:  *'He  never  knew  a  man  to  work 
seven  days  in  the  week  who  did  not  kill  himself  or  his  mind." 

In  August,  1843,  Charles  Bianconi,  a  well-known  car  pro- 
prietor in  Ireland,  read  a  paper  before  the  British  Association 
for  the  Advancement  of  Science,  at  Cork,  in  which  he  stated 
that  he  had  then  in  his  employment  one  hundred  vehicles, 
performing  daily  3,800  miles,  with  1,300  horses,  and  added: 
''The  establishment  is  not  at  work  on  Sundays,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  those  portions  of  it  which  are  in  connection  with 
the  post-office  or  canals,  for  the  following  reasons :  First,  the 
Irish  being  a  religious  people,  will  not  travel  on  business  on 
Sundays;  and,  secondly,  experience  teaches  that  I  can  work 
a  horse  eight  miles  per  day  in  six  days  in  the  week  for  seven 
days,  and  by  not  working  on  Sundays,  I  effect  a  saving  of 
twelve  per  cent." 

Dr.  Benjamin  Richardson,  the  leading  sanitary  authority  in 
England,  not  long  ago  delivered  a  lecture  in  London  upon 
the  ''Vitality  of  the  Jews  and  the  Mosaic  Sanitary  Code." 
After  giving  some  interesting  statistics  as  to  the  large  portion 
of  the  Jews  who  reach  old  age.  Dr.  Richardson  took  up  the 
causes  of  this  longevity,  chief  among  which  were  the  observ- 
ance of  the  laws  of  Moses.  "Its  provisions,"  he  said,  "form 
a  marvelous  collection  of  sanitary  rules.  The  rest  enjoined 
upon  the  seventh  day  is  a  most  important  provision  for  health, 
which,  if  strictly  obeyed,  would  insure  to  any  nation  an  extra 
term  of  life." 

Mr.  Corliss,  the  builder  of  the  enormous  engine  for  Ma- 
chinery Hall  at  our  great  Centennial,  speaking  on  whether  to 
open  on  Sunday,  said:  "My  opinion  on  that  point  is  very  de- 
cided, and  I  am  very  free  to  express  it.  All  the  good  that 
would  be  accomplished  by  this  Exhibition  will  be  neutralized 


134  C)LD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

if  opened  on  Sunday;  and  it  would  better  never  have  been 
opened.  The  result  will  be  disastrous  to  the  morals  of  the 
community  if  the  laws  of  God  and  man  are  to  be  thus  set  at 
defiance.  The  laboring  men,  likewise,  have  great  interests 
at  stake,  and  the  tendency  would  be  to  give  the  employer 
great  advantage  over  his  workmen,  as  it  would  ultimately  lead 
to  breaking  down  the  barriers  that  now  protect  his  one  day  in 
seven;  and,  in  the  end,  the  demand  for  labor  would  exceed 
the  supply.  This  we  may  not  see  now;  but  it  will  surely 
come,  and  the  opening  of  the  Exhibition  on  Sunday  will  be 
but  the  entering  wedge." 

A  South  German  paper,  not  long  ago,  contains  a  remark- 
able confession  of  Ernst  Keil,  the  proprietor  and  publisher  of 
the  well-known  Garknlaube,  and  who  died  not  long  ago. 
When  this  paper,  the  anti-Christian  character  of  which,  it  is 
said,  can  not  be  mistaken,  reached,  in  1867,  an  edition  of 
225,000,  Keil  wrote  as  follows,  to  a  friend:  "That  is  a  success 
of  which  I  may  well  be  proud,  for  the  work  is,  editorially  and 
in  its  management,  mine  and  mine  alone.  But,  if  any  one 
asks  me  if  it  has  made  me  happy,  I  have  only  a  sad  answer 
to  give.  For  fifteen  years  I  have  had  only  this  one  thought, 
which,  day  and  night,  and  everywhere,  has  ruled  me  with  a 
demon  power,  robbed  me  of  the  remaining  joys  of  life,  made 
me  a  solitary  man,  and  often,  in  its  effects,  produced  unspeak- 
able misery  for  me  and  my  family.  Fifteen  years  of  the  fin- 
est portion  of  my  life  I  have  buried  myself  in  work,  have  had 
no  Sunday,  have  withdrawn  from  my  friends  and  lived  for 
business.  Notwithstanding  the  means  at  my  disposal  for  trav- 
eling, I  have,  with  the  exception  of  a  tour  in  Switzerland, 
seen  nothmg  of  the  world;  and  if  my  weary  bones  be  stretched 
out  to-morrow,  people  will  say,  'He  was  a  fool.'  The  con- 
ducting of  such  a  work  is  a  curse  which  holds  one  bound 
with  iron  cramps  and,  at  last,  smashes  life,  while  all  that  has 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 35 

been  gained  is  a  successful  number.  In  six  years  I  have  had 
only  three  days  of  recreation.  Ambition  may  be  satisfied  by 
the  success  of  such  a  paper,  but  happiness  can  not  be  found 
in  it.     I  have  found  this  out  by  experience." 

Poor  Kiel!  He  truly  said  the  world  will  say,  *'He  was  a 
fool."  But  the  Old  Testament  had  said  it  long  before  the 
world  said  it:  "The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart.  There  is  no 
God." — Ps.  xiv.  i;  Uii.  i.  "The  way  of  a  fool  is  right  in 
his  own  eyes :  but  he  that  hearkeneth  unto  counsel  is  wise." 
— Pro  v.  xii.  15. 

Thus  history,  moral  and  physical  science,  infidel  testimony 
and  experience,  unite  in  holding  up  the  Old  Testament  in  its 
Sabbath  characteristic  as  incomoarably  above  infidelity  and 
heathenism. 

♦'  BirJs  can  not  always  sing; 

Silence  at  times  they  ask  to  nurse  spent  feeling, 
To  some  new  bright  thing, 

Ere  a  fresh  burst  of  song,  fresh  joy  revealing. 

"Flowers  can  not  always  blow  ; 

Some  Sabbath  rest  they  need  of  silent  winter, 
Ere  from  its  sheath  below 

Shoots  up  a  small,  green  blade,  brown  earth  to  splinter. 

**T6ngues  can  not  always  speak; 

O  God,  in  this  loud  world  of  noise  and  clatter, 
Save  us  this  once-a-rueek. 

To  let  the  sown  seed  grow,  not  always  scatter." 

Would  that  through  and  above  the  noise  and  strife,  disap- 
pointment and  sorrow,  anxiety  and  weariness,  destruction  and 
death,  moaning  and  wailing,  of  a  lost  world,  the  words  of 
Old  Testament  Ethics — "Remember  tlie  Sabhath-day  to  keep 
' a  holy'" — might  ring;  for  they  "have  forgotten  their  resting 
placed— ]^x.  1.  6. 


136  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Essential  to  Old  Testament  Ethics  is  the  Revelation 
OF  THE  Moral  Law. 

While  man  has  perceived  and  discovered  many  wise  rules 
to  govern  life,  the  history  of  ethics  clearly  teaches  that  many 
things'which  are  essential  to  ethics  have  been  left  unperceived 
or  undiscovered.  To  stop  long  and  prove  this,  is  not  the 
purpose  of  this  book;  nor  is  much  proving  it  necessary.  From 
the  previous  chapter,  we  can  come  to  no  other  conclusion 
than  that  the  revealed  law  is  necessary  to  ethics.  Else,  why 
has  there  never  been  found  any  true  and  adequate  concep- 
tion of  man's  moral  condition,  destiny,  and  the  nature  of  the 
great  principles  and  facts  underlymg  these,  outside  of  the 
Bible? 

All  other  than  Bible  Ethics  are  but  speculations,  or,  in  a 
few  instances,  possibly  mythological  revelations.  In  no  case 
is  ethics,  outside  of  the  Bible,  essentially  a  revealed  ethics. 
Wuttke  says  of  Aristotle's  ethics  (in  Aristotle,  Grecian  and 
heathen  ethics  attained  its  highest  perfection):  "Only,  rela- 
tively, a  few  general  thoughts  are  scientifically  developed;  by 
far  the  larger  part  is  treated  empirically  and  aphoristically. 
Aristotle  expressly  renounces  all  attempts  at  scientific  strict- 
ness of  demonstration  and  development;  the  subject  does 
not  admit  of  this,  but  only  of  probability.  Hence,  the  form 
of  presentation  ....  sinks  not  infrequently  into  dry  com- 
mon-sense observations ;  and  lingers,  for  the  m»ost  part,  with- 
in the  sphere  of  the  popular  grasp." — Eth.,  Vol  /.,  /.  93. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 37 

Lecky,  an  infidel,  says:  '^  Nature, does  not  tell  man  that  it 
is  wrong  to  slay,  without  provocation,  our  fellow-man." — 
Hist.  Europ.  Mor.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  19.  Draper,  an  infidel, 'ac- 
knowledges :  "The  physical  speculations  of  Greece  and  Rome 
ended  in  sophistry  and  atheism." — Intel.  Develop.  Europe,  p. 
120.  Turn  to  Chapter  III.  of  this  book  for  the  ethics  which 
"reason"  gives;  and  see  how  Draper's  words  find  illustration 
in  all  ages. 

Ethics  outside  of  the  Bible  are  of  as  little  value  as  national 
laws  outside  of  national  law  books  or  records.  Reason  is 
worth  as  little  in  governing  men  in  moral  matters  as  it  is  in 
national  matters.  All  governments  must  have  revealed  or 
written  laws— revealed  authoritatively  by  the  law-making  and 
law-executing  power.  History  proves  this  is  no  less  true  of 
the  moral  government  of  God — of  ethics,  Without  such  a 
revelation  of  ethics,  in  the  language  of  Hume:  "The  whole 
is  a  riddle,  an  enigma,  an  inexplicable  mystery;  ....  such 
is  the  frailty  of  human  reason." — Hume's  Essays,  Vol.  II,  p. 
469.  So  Buckle,  another  infidel,  says:  "Now,  it  requires 
but  a  superficial  acquaintance  with  history  to  be  aware  that 
this  (moral)  standard  is  constantly  changing,  and  that  it  is 
never  precisely  the  same  in  the  most  similar  countries,  or  in 

two  successive  generations  in  the  same  country This 

extreme  mutability  in  the  ordinary  standard  of  human  actions, 
shows  that  the  conditions  on  which  the  standard  depends  must 
themselves  be  very  mutable;  and  those  conditions,  whatever 
they  may  be,  are  evidently  the  originators  of  the  moral  and 
intellectual  conduct  of  the  great  average  of  mankind." — Hist. 
Civ.,  Vol.  I,  p.  129.  Infidel  writings  are  full  of  such  conces- 
sions as  this  by  Mr.  Buckle. 

Greg,  an  infidel,  w^ell  says:  "Their  imperfect  culture,  and 
their  low  stage  of  intelligence,  demands  absolute  certainty  and 
positive  dogma.     Doctrines  w]v"ch  resulted  from  a  mere  bal- 


138  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

ance  of  probabilities,  which  were,  and  avowed  themselves  to 
be,  simply  the  conclusions  of  mature  and  enlightened  reason, 
would  have  no  adequate  hold  on  (men's)  their  belief.  Laws  of 
conduct  laid  down  as  imperative,  merely  as  being  conformable 
to  the  sound  instincts  of  sound  natures,  as  plainly  conducive 
or  indispensable  to  the  good  of  mankind  and  of  themselves 
in  the  long  run,  would  have  no  adequate  hold  on  their  be- 
lief. ....  They  need  .  .  .  the  announcement,  '  God 
spake  these  words,  and  said.''  " — Enig.  of  Life,  pp.  245,  246. 

The  great  jurist,  Blackstone,  says:  "Undoubtedly  the  re- 
vealed law  is  infinitely  more  authentic  than  that  moral  system 
which  is  framed  by  ethical  writers,  and  denominated  the  nat- 
ural law;  because  one  is  the  law  of  nature,  expressly  declared 
so  to  be  by  God  himself;  the  other  is  only  what,  by  the  as- 
sistance of  human  reason,  we  imagine  to  be  that  law.  If  we 
could  be  as  certain  of  the  latter  as  of  the  former,  both  would 
have  an  equal  authority;  but,  till  then,  they  can  never 
BE  PUT  IN  competition  TOGETHER." — CJi.  Blackstone,  Vol.  /., 
J>.  28,  sec.  42.  (Read  here  Philosophy  of  the  Plan  of  Salvation, 
pp.  272-274.)  This  is  one  of  the  causes  of  the  abiding,  pow- 
erful and  widening  mfluence  of  the  Bible.  This  enabled  the 
Bible  to  civilize  the  Jews,  civilize  Europe  and  America. 
Other  ethics,  in  that  in  which  they  are  true,  are  almost  a 
dead  letter. 


vfefe 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED.  I39 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Ten  Commandments  the  Constitution  of  Old  Testa- 
ment Ethical  Laws  and  Regulations. 

Old  Testament  Ethics  are  well  known  to  have  been  given 
to  a  people  who  were  to  be  governed  by  a  politico-ecclesias- 
tical government — a  kind  of  mixture  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
government.  The  ethics  of  the  Old  were,  therefore,  to  gov- 
ern the  Jews  in  their  individual  and  in  their  national  capacity. 
We  have  seen  what  are  the  basal  principles  and  facts  to  this 
ethical  government. 

The  ten  commandments  sustain  the  relation  to  the  statutes 
and  regulations  of  Israel  that  the  constitution  of  a  State  or 
of  the  United  States  sustains  to  its  statutes  and  regulations. 
In  other  words,  the  ten  commandments  were  the  moral  con- 
stitution of  Israel;  the  other  laws  and  regulations  were  the 
statutes.  The  reader  will,  from  this  fact,  readily  see  that 
none  of  the  laws  and  regulations  of  Israel  can  conflict  with 
the  ten  commandments;  and  that  their  interpretation  and 
ethics  must  be  according  to  the  ethics  of  this  constitution. 
Let  the  reader  carefully,  here,  read  and  compare  Ex.  xx.- 
xxiii.  Then  compare  these  with  Ex.  xxxiv.  i.  Dr.  Rufus 
P.  Stebbins  says  these  were  "a  code  of  rules  based  upon  the 
ten  laws  or  commandments." — A  Study  of  the  Pentateuch,  p. 
29 — note.  And  Dr.  Stebbins  quotes  Davidson:  *'The  Prov- 
erbs are  ethical  maxims,  deduced  from  the  Mosaic  law  and 
divine  Providence." — Idem,  p.  128.     Remember  that  neither 


I40  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

Prof.  Stebbins  nor  Prof.  Davidson  are  members  of  the  "evan- 
gelical" side.  ''On  the  basis  of  these,  it  maybe  conceived 
that  the  fabric  of  the  Mosaic  system  gradually  grew  up  un- 
der the  requirements  of  the  time." — Smithes  Bible  Diet.,  Vol. 
II.,  p.  163.  The  following  are  a  few  points  from  77/^  Deca- 
logue, by  that  master  of  Old  Testament  learning,  Prof.  Fair- 
bairn,  D.D.:  "i.  The  very  manner  in  which  these  command- 
ments were  given  is  sufficient  to  vindicate  for  them  a  place 
peculiarly  their  own.  For  these  alone,  of  all  the  precepts 
which  form  the  Mosaic  code,  were  spoken  immediately  by 
the  voice  of  God;  while  the  rest  were  privately  communi- 
cated to  Moses,  and  by  him  delivered  to  the  people.  Nor 
was  the  mode  of  revelation  merely  peculiar,  but  it  was  at- 
tended also  by  demonstrations  of  divine  majesty,  such  as  were 

never  witnessed  on  any  other  occasion 2.   The 

same  may  also  be  inferred  from  the  number  ten,  the  symbol 
of  completeness.  It  indicates  that  they  formed  by  themselves 
an  entire  whole,  made  up  of  the  necessary,  and  no  more  than 
the  necessary,  complement  of  parts 3-  It  per- 
fectly accords  with  this  view  of  the  ten  commandments,  and 
is  a  further  confirmation  of  it,  that  they  were  written  by  the 
finger  of  God  on  two  tables  of  stone — written  on  bolh  sides, 
so  as  to  cover  the  entire  surface,  and  not  leave  room  for  fu- 
ture additions,  as  if  what  was  already  given  might  admit  of 
improvements;  and  written  on  durable  tables  of  stone,  while 
the  rest  of  the  law  was  written  only  on  parchment  or  paper. 
.  .  .  .  Hengstenberg  .  .  .  justly  remarks:  .  .  .  'The 
stone  points  to  the  perpetuity  which  belongs  to  the  law,  as  an 
expression  of  the  divine  will,  originating  in  the  divine  nature.' 
It  was  an  image  of  the  truth  uttered  by  our  Lord,  'Verily,  I 
say  unto  you.  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  titde 
shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled.'  4. 
Then  these  ten  words,  as  they  are  called,  had  the  peculiar 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  141 

honor  conferred  on  them  by  being  properly  the  terms  of  the 
covenant,   formed  at  Sinai.     Then   Moses,  when  rehearsing 
what  had  taken  place,  says  (Deut.  iv.  13):   'And  he  declared 
to  you  his  covenant,  which  he  commanded  you  to  perform, 
even  ten  commandments,  and  he  wrote  them  upon  tables  of 
stone.'     Again,  in  chapter  ix.  9,  11,  he  calls  those  tables  of 
stone,  'the  tables  of  the  covenant.'     So,  also,  in  Exod.  xxxiv. 
28,  'The  words  written  upon  tables,  the  ten  commandments,' 
are  expressly  called  'the  words  of  the  covenant.'     To  mark 
more  distinctly  the  covenant  nature  of  these  words,  it  is  to 
be  observed  that  the  Scripture  never  once  uses  the  expression, 
'the  tables  of  the  law;'  but,  always,  simply  'the  tables  of  the 
testimony,'  or  conjoining  the  two,  'the  tables  of  the  testimony 
or  tables  of  the  covenant.'     It  is  true  some  other  commands 
are  coupled  with  the  ten,  when,  in  Exod.  xxxiv.  27,  the  Lord 
said  to  Moses,  that  'after  the  tenor  of  [at  the  mouth  of,  ac- 
cording to]  these  words,  he  had  made  a  covenant  with  Israel. ' 
It  is  true,  also,  that  at  the  formal  ratification  of  the  covenant 
—Exod.   xxiv. — we  read  of  the  book  of  the  covenant,  which 
comprehended  not  only  the  ten  commandments,  but  also  the 
precepts  contained  in  chapters  xxi.,  xxiii.;  for  it  is  clear  that  the 
book  comprised  all  that  the  Lord  had  then  said,  either  directly 
or  by  the  instrumentahty  of  Moses,  and  to  which  the  people 
answered,  'We  will  do  it.'     But  it  is  carefully  to  be  observed 
that  a  marked  distinction  is  still  put  between  the  ten  com- 
mandments and  the  other  precepts;  for  the  former  are  called, 
emphatically,  'the  words  of  the  Lord,'  while  the  additional 
words,  given  through  Moses,  are  called  'the  judgments'  (verse 
3).     They  are,  indeed,  for  the  most  part,  peculiarly  rights  or 
judgments,  havmg  respect,  for  the  most  part,  to  what  should 
be  done  from  one  man  to  another;  and  what,  in  the  event  of 
violations  of  the  law  being  committed,  ought  to  be  enforced 
judicially,  with  a  view  of  rectifying  or  checking  the  evil.   .   . 


142  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

5.  What  has  been  said  in  regard  to  the  ten  commandments, 
as  alone  properly  constituting  the  terms  of  the  covenant,  is 
fully  established;  and  the  singular  importance  of  these  com- 
mandments further  manifested,  by  the  place  afterwards  as- 
signed them  in  the  tabernacle.  The  most  sacred  portion  of 
this — that  which  formed  the  very  heart  of  all  the  services 
connected  with  it — was  the  ark  of  the  covenant.  It  was  the 
peculiar  symbol  of  the  Lord's  covenant  presence  and  faithful- 
ness, and  immediately  above  it  was  the  throne  on  which  he 
sat  as  king  in  Jeshurun.  But  the  ark  was  made  on  purpose 
to  contain  the  tables  of  the  law,  and  was  called  the  'ark  of 
the  covenant,'  simply  because  it  contained  the  tables  of  the 
covenant.'     The  book  of  the  law  was  afterwards  placed  by 

Moses  at  the  side  of  the  ark But  the  tables  on 

which  the  ten  commandments  were  written  alone  kept  pos- 
session of  the  ark.  and  were  thus  recognized  as  containing  in 
themselves  the  sum  and  substance  of  what  in  righteousness 
was  held  to  be  strictly  required  by  the  covenant.  6.  Finally, 
our  Lord  and  his  apostles  always  point  to  the  revelation  of 
law  engraven  upon  these  stones  as  holding  a  pre-eminent 
place,  and,  indeed,  as  comprising  all  that,  in  the  strict  and 

proper  «sense,  was  to  be  esteemed  as  law We  should 

despair  of  proving  anything  respecting  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation,  if  these  considerations  do  not  prove  that  the 
law  of  the  ten  commandments  stood  out  from  all  other  pre- 
cepts enjoined  under  the  ministration  of  Moses,  and  were 
intended  to  form  a  full  and  comprehensive  exhibition  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  law  in  its  strict  and  proper  sense." — The 
Typology  of  Scripture,  by  Fairbami,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  78-83. 

In  this  connection,  Fairbairn  quotes  from  Bahr,  a  great 
German  scholar,  to  whom,  though  doctrinally  unsound,  "much 
praise  is  due  for  having  laid  the  foundation  of  a  more  pro- 
found and  systematic  explanation  of  the  symbols  of  the  Mosaic 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  I43 

dispensation"  :  ''The  decalogue  is  representative  of  the  whole 
law;  it  contains  religious  and  political,  not  less  than  moral, 
precepts.  The  command  is  purely  a  religious  one;  as  is 
also  the  fourth,  which  belongs  to  the  ceremonial  law;  and 
indeed,  generally,  by  reason  of  the  theocratic  constitution, 
all  civil  commands  were  at  the  same  time  religious  and  moral 
ones,  and  inversely;  so  that  the  old  division  into  moral,  cere- 
monial and  political,  or  judicial,  appears  quite  untenable." — 
Typol,  Vol.  11. ,  p.  84,  from  Symbolik,  Vol.  Z,  /.  384.  While 
Bahr  has  confounded  different  things,  the  element  of  truth  in 
his  statement  is,  that  the  ten  commandments  are,  clearly,  the 
constitution  of  Israel.  Let  the  reader  read  Ps.  xv.,  xxiv., 
xl.  i;  Isa.  i.,  Ivii.,  etc.;  Micah  vi. ;  Rom.  ii.  17-23;  iii.  10- 
18;  vii.  7;  xiii.  9,  10;  i  Tim.  i.  7-10;  Deut.  vi.  5;  Matt, 
xxii.  40. 

Having  clearly  proved  that  the  ten  commandments  are  the 
constitution  of  Israel,  based  upon  the  Great  Basis  of  ethics, 
as  pointed  out  in  Chapter  III.  of  this  book,  for  convenience 
I  here  copy  the  following  admirable  analysis  of  this  constitu- 
tion, made  by  Hengstenberg  and  Fairbairn:  "Thou  shalt  not 
injure  thy  neighbor — i.  In  deed — and  that  (i)  not  in  regard 
to  his  life;  (2)  not  in  regard  to  his  dearest,  his  wife;  (3)  not 
in  regard  to  his  property  generally.  2.  In  word  ('Thou  shalt 
not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neighbor'),     3.   In  thought 

('Thou  shalt  not  covet') That  a  special  prohibition 

of  sinful  lust  should  follow  the  rest,  shows  that  what  has  been 
said  in  reference  to  word  and  deed  primarily  has  respect  to 
these.  Still,  it  must  not  be  overlooked,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  precisely  through  the  succession  of  deed,  word  and 
thought,  the  deed  and  word  are  stripped  of  their  merely  out- 
ward character,  and  referred  back  to  the  root  in  the  mind; 
are  marked  simply  as  the  end  of  a  process,  the  commence- 
ment of  which  is  to  be  sought  in  the  heart.     If  this  is  duly 


144  <^LD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

considered,  it  will  appear  that  what  primarily  refers  only  to 
word  and  deed,  carried  at  the  same  time  an  indirect  reference 
to  the  emotions  of  the  heart.  Thus,  the  only  way  to  fulfill 
the  command,  'Thou  shalt  not  kill,'  is  to  have  the  root  extir- 
pated from  the  heart,  out  of  w^iich  murder  springs.  While 
that  is  not  done,  the  command  is  not  fully  complied  with, 
even  though  no  outward  murder  is  committed.  For  this  must 
be  dependent  upon  circumstances  which  lie  beyond  the  circle 
of  man's  proper  agency."  -Quoted  by  Fairbairn.  And  Fair- 
bairn  adds:  "There  is  less  depth  and  comprehensiveness  in 
the  first  table,  as  the  learned  writer  has  remarked,  and  a  sim- 
ilar regard  is  had  in  it  to  thought,  word  and  deed,  only  in  re- 
verse order,  and  lying  somewhat  less  upon  the  surface.  The 
fourth  and  fifth  precepts  demand  the  due  honoring  of  God  in 
deed;  the  third  in  word;  and  the  two  first,  pointing  to  his 
sole  Godhead  and  absolute  spirituality,  require  for  himself, 
personally,  and  for  his  worship,  that  place  in  the  heart  to 
which  they  are  entitled.  Very  striking  in  this  respect  is  the 
announcement  in  the  second  commandment,  of  a  visitation 
of  evil  upon  those  that  hate  God,  and  an  extension  of  mercy 
to  thousands  that  love  him.  As  much  as  to  say,  it  is  the 
heart  of  love  I  require;  and  if  ever  my  worship  is  corrupted 
by  the  introduction  of  images,  it  is  only  to  be  counted  for  the 
working  of  hatred  instead  of  love  in  the  heart.  So  that  the 
heart  may  truly  be  called  the  alpha  and  the  omega  of  this 
wonderful  revelation  of  law:  it  stands  prominently  forth  at 
both  ends ;  and  had  no  inspired  commentary  been  given  on 
the  full  import  of  the  ten  words,  looking  merely  to  these  words 
themselves,  we  can  not  but  perceive  that  they  stretch  their 
demands  over  the  whole  range  of  man's  active  operations, 
and  can  only  be  fulfilled  by  the  constant  and  uninterrupted 
exercise  of  love  to  God  and  man,  in  the  various  regions  of 
the  heart,  the  conversation  and  the  conduct With 


OLD   TESTAMENT    KTHICS    VINDICATED.  I45 

manifest  reference  to  the  second  table,  and  with  the  view  of 
expressing  in  one  brief  sentence  the  essence  of  its  meaning, 
Moses  had  said,  'Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself 
(Lev.  xix.  18);  and,  in  like  manner,  regarding  the  first  table, 
'Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and 
with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might'  (Deut.  vi.  5). 
It  is  against  all  reason  to  suppose  that  these  precepts  should 
require  more  than  what  was  required  in  those  which  formed 
the  very  ground-work  and  heart  of  the  Mosaic  legislation; 
and  we  have  the  express  authority  of. our  Lord  for  holding 
that  the  whole  law,  as  well  as  the  prophets,  hung  upon  them 
(Matt.  xxii.  40).  In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  also,  he  has 
given  us  an  insight  into  the  wide  reach  and  deep  spiritual 
meaning  of  the  ten  commandments,  clearing  them  from  the 
false  and  superficial  gloss  of  the  carnal  Pharisees.  And  to 
mention  no  more,  the  Apostle  Paul,  referring  to  the  law  of 
the  ten  commandments,  calls  it  'spiritual,  holy,  just  and  good;' 
represents  it  as  the  grand  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  Spirit 
for  convincing  of  sin;  and  declares  the  only  fulfillment  of  it 

to  be  perfect  love As  a  necessary  consequence, 

the  two  grand  rules :  i.  That  the  same  precept  which  forbids 
the  external  acts  of  sin,  forbids  likewise  the  inward  desires  and 
emotions  of  sin  in  the  heart;  as,  also,  that  the  precept  which 
commands  the  external  acts  of  duty,  requires  at  the  same- 
time  the  inward  feelings  and  principles  of  holiness,  of  which 
the  external  acts  could  only  be  the  fitting  expression.  2.  That 
the  negative  commands  include  in  them  the  injunction  of  the 
contrary  duties,  and  the  positive  commands  the  prohibition 
of  the  contrary  sins;  so  that  in  each  there  is  something  re- 
quired as  well  as  forbidden. "  yV/A^-^c)*,  Vol.  JI.,  pp.  95,  96,  97. 
In,  first,  being  commands  oi  d,  personal  God  and  Moral  Gov- 
ernor; in,  second,  commanding  love  to  that  God  and  Gov 
ernor;  in,  third,  forbidding  the  degrading  practice  of  idolatry; 


146  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

in,  fourth,  forbidding  the  degrading  sin  of  profanity;  in,  fifth, 
providing  for  the  Sabbath  day;  in,  sixth,  providing  for  rest 
— mercy  to  animals,  by  giving  them,  also,  the  rest;  in,  sev- 
enth, inculcating  responsibility  to  God;  in,  eighth,  teaching 
that  all  obedience  must  be  from  the  heart;  in,  ninth,  teaching 
that  God  would  cut  them  off  from  covenant  relations  with 
himself,  and  otherwise  punish  them ;  this  constitution  of  Israel 
rises  above  the  very  best  known  ethics  of  the  heathen  world, 
of  any  age.  And  the  other  commands  of  this  constitution 
have,  as  a  general  fact,  been  but  faintly  known  among  heathen 
nations,  and  by  them  still  more  faintly  practiced.    (See  Exod. 

XX.) 

Taking  the  ten  commandments — the  Constitution  of  the 
Old  Testament — as  its  ground  and  spirit,  this  chapter  might 
close  this  work,  as  having  vindicated  the  perfect  holiness  of 
Old  Testament  Ethics.  In  all  interpretations  of  Old  Testa- 
ment Ethics,  the  rules  in  Chapter  II.  of  this  book — see,  espe- 
cially, the  latter  part  of  the  chapter — bind  us  to  interpret  it 
by  its  Constitution. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  1 47 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Ethical  Nature  and  Design  of  Old  Testament  Cere- 
monies. 

Fairbairn  quotes  that  great  scholar,  C.  O.  Muller:  "That 
this  connection  of  the  idea  with  the  sign,  when  it  took  place, 
was  natural  and  necessary  to  the  ancient  world;  that  it  oc- 
curred involuntarily ;  and  that  the  essence  of  the  symbol  con- 
sists in  the  supposed  real  connection  of  the  sign  with  the  thing 
signified,  I  here  assume.  Now  symbols,  in  this  sense,  are 
evidently  coeval  with  the  human  race;  they  result  from  the 
union  of  the  soul  with  the  body  in  man;  nature  has  implanted 
the  feeling  for  them  in  the  human  heart.  How  is  it  that  we 
understand  what  the  endless  diversities  of  human  expression 
and  gesture  signify?  How  comes  it  that  every  physiognomy 
expresses  to  us  spiritual  peculiarities,  without  any  conscious- 
ness on  our  part  of  the  cause  ?  Here  experience  alone  can 
not  be  our  guide;  for  without  having  ever  seen  a  countenance 
like  that  of  Jupiter  Olympus,  we  should  yet,  when  we  saw  it, 
immediately  understand  its  features.  An  earlier  race  of  man- 
kind, who  lived  still  more  in  sensible  impressions,  must  have 
had  a  still  stronger  feeling  for  them.  It  may  be  said  that  all 
nature  wore  to  them  a  physiognomical  aspect.  Now,  the  wor- 
ship which  represented  the  feelings  of  the  divine,  invisible,  ex- 
ternal actions  was,  in  its  nature,  thoroughly  symbolical.  No  one 
can  seriously  doubt  that  prostration  in  prayer  is  a  symbolical 
act;  for  corporeal  debasement  evidently  denotes  spiritual  sub- 


148  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

ordination:  so  evidently,  that  language  can  not  even  describe 
the  spiritual,  except  by  means  of  a  material  relation.  But  it 
is  equally  certain  that  sacrifice  also  is  symbolical;  for  how 
would  the  feeling  of  acknowledgment,  that  it  is  a  God  who 
supplies  us  with  food  and  drink,  display  itself  in  action,  but 
by  withdrawing  a  portion  of  them  from  the  use  of  man,  and 
setting  it  apart  in  honor  of  the  Deity?  But  precisely  because 
the  symbolical  has  its  essence  in  the  idea  of  actual  connection 
between  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified,  was  an  inlet  left  for 
the  superstitious  error,  that  something  palatable  was  really 
offered  to  the  gods — that  they  tasted  it.  But  it  will  scarcely 
do  to  derive  the  usage  from  this  superstition ;  in  other  words, 
to  assign  the  intention  of  raising  a  savory  steam  as  the  orig- 
inal foundation  of  all  sacrifice.  It  would  then  be  necessary 
to  suppose  that,  at  the  ceremony  of  libation,  the  wine  was 
poured  out  on  the  earth,  in  order  that  the  gods  might  lick  it 
up !  I  have  here  only  brought  into  view  one  side  of  the  idea, 
which  formed  the  basis  of  sacrifice,  and  which  the  other, 
certainly  not  less  ancient,  always  accompanied  —namely,  the 
idea  of  atonement  by  sacrifice;  which  was  from  the  earliest 
times  expressed  in  numberless  usages  and  legends,  and  which 
could  only  spring  from  the  strongest  and  most  intense  religious 
feeling:  'We  are  deserving  of  death;  we  offer  as  a  substitute 
the  blood  of  the  animal. '  " — Midler  s  Inirod.  to  Scientific  System 
of  Mythology^  p.  196,  as  quoted  by  Fairbairn  in  Typology  of 
Scriptuj-e,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  197,  198.  Referring  to  the  view  of 
Bahr,  whose  testimony  is  not  liable  to  suspicion  on  the  grounds 
of  being  evangelical,  Fairbairn  says:  ''And  it  is  justly  inferred 
by  Bahr,  ....  to  the  ceremonial  part  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  that  the  outward  observances  of  worship  it  imposed 
could  not  possibly  be  in  themselves  an  end ;  that  they  must 
have  been  intended  to  be  only  an  image  and  representation 
of  internal  and  spiritual  relations;   and  that  the  command. 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 49 

'Not  to  make  any  likeness  or  graven  image,'  is  of  itself  incon- 
testible  proof  of  the  symbolical  character  of  the  Mosaic  relig- 
ion."— Bahr's  Symholik^  Vol.  /.,  /.  14;  Fairbairn!s  Typology, 
Vol.  IT.,  p.  93.  See  Hebrews,  where  this  is  taught  and  where 
much  of  the  typology  of  the  Old  Testament  is  explained. 

Sign  teaching  is  not  peculiar  to  religion;  but  of  things,  in 
general,  it  stands  a  teacher.  The  soldier  who  pours  out  his 
heart's  blood  upon  the  gory  field  for  the  flag  that  floats  above 
him,  illustrates  how  symbols  teach  and  hold  the  heart.  ' '  It 
is  difficult  to  exhibit  greater  things  without  the  use  of  pat- 
terns. ' ' — Guest  in  Statesman  of  Plato.  *  'As  hieroglyphics  come 
before  letters,  so  parables  came  before  arguments.  And  even 
now,  if  any  one  wish  to  let  new  light  on  any  subject  into 
men's  minds,  and  that  without  offense  or  harshness,  he  must 
still  go  the  same  way,  and  call  in  the  aid  of  similitudes." — 
Lord  Bacon' s  Works ,  Vol.  XIII.,  p.  80 — quoted,  on  page  115, 
in  Mad.  Ave.  Led.     Milton  says : 

"What  if  earth 
Be  but  the  shadow  of  heaven,  and  things  therein 
Each  to  the  other  like,  more  than  on  earth  is  thought?" 

And  another  expresses  it : 

"From  everything  our  Savior  saw, 
Lessons  of  wisdom  he  would  draw ; 
The  clouds,  the  colors  in  the  sky ; 
The  gentle  breeze  that  whispers  by  ; 
The  fields,  all  white  with  waving  corn  ; 
The  lilies  that  the  vale  adorn  ; 
The  reed  that  trembles  in  the  wind; 
The  tree  where  none  its  fruit  can  find; 
The  sliding  sand,  the  flinty  rock, 
That  bears  unmoved  the  tempest's  shock ; 
The  thorns  that  on  the  earth  abound; 
The  tender  grass  that  clothes  the  ground; 


150  OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

The  little  birds  that  fly  in  air; 
The  sheep  that  need  the  shepherd's  care; 
The  pearls  that  deep  in  ocean  lie ; 
The  gold  that  charms  the  miser's  eye; 
All  from  his  lips  some  truth  proclaim, 
Or  learn  to  lell  their  Maker's  name." 

Symbols  of  the  Old  Testament  were  ordained  to  teach  es- 
pecial truths.  The  limit  of  this  book  permits  only  a  running 
notice  of  the  holy  significance  of  the  typology  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. In  Bible  dictionaries,  commentaries,  etc.,  the  reader 
will  see  for  himself  illustrations  of  the  moral  significance  of 
Old  Testament  ceremonies.  Fairbairtis  Typology  is  the  most 
thorough  and  reliable  work,  outside  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, on  Scripture  typology. 

The  bloody  offerings  taught  that  sin  is  so  heinous  that  we 
have  forfeited  our  spiritual  life,  and  that  we,  without  satisfac- 
tion for  our  sins  by  the  death  of  Christ,  are  cut  off  forever 
from  all  approach  to  and  favor  of  God.  The  high  priest  was 
typical  of  Jesus,  who  is  the  real  High  Priest,  through  whose 
intercession  sinful  man  must  come  to  the  holy  God.  The 
other  priests  represented  the  believer,  offering  his  heart's  sac- 
rifices— worship  —  to  God,  through  the  great  High  Priest. 
The  fleshly  purifications  of  these  priests  represented  the  spir- 
itual purity  of  the  great  High  Priest,  and  the  spiritual  purity 
with  which  each  believer  must  come  to  the  holy  God.  The 
judgments  of  God  on  them  for  disregarding  these  symbols 
represent  the  certainty  of  judgment  upon  all  who  are  not 
purified,  saved,  worship  through  Jesus  Christ — the  certainty 
of  damnation  upon  iniquity.  ''For  if  the  word  spoken  by 
angels  was  steadfast,  and  every  transgression  and  disobedience 
received  a  just  recompense  of  reward;  how  shall  we  escape, 
if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation?" — Heb.  ii.  2,  3. 

The  God  of  the  Old  Testament  being  holy,  his  worship 


OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  151 

requiring  holiness  of  the  worshiper,  all  obscene  rites — which 
characterized  the  worship  of  Ashtaroth,  Bacchus,  or  the  cruel 
worship  of  Moloch  or  Juggernaut,  etc.  (see  pages  29-32  of 
this  book) — were  prohibited  under  pain  of  death.  Read  Exod. 
xxiii.  24;  Lev.  xviii.  30,  especially  verses  24-27, where  the  in- 
iquities of  the  heathen  are  specifically  referred  to ;  2  Kings  xvii. 
15-18;  Deut.  xviii.  9-14;  xxxii.  15-17;  2  Kings, whole  of  xxi.; 
Deut.  XX.  17,  18;  Ezra  ix.  10-15;  2  Chron.  xxviii.  1-5;  xxxiii. 
5-20;  Ps.  cvi.  34-40.  The  reader  is  earnestly  urged  to  stop, 
turn  to,  read  and  carefully  compare  these  Scriptures.  Even 
the  ablest  infidel  scholars  no  longer  deny  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  generally  reliable  as  a  historical  work;  and  here  we 
have  the  history  of  the  holiness  of  Jehovah's  demands  and 
worship  compared  with  heathenism,  of  not  only  then,  but,  as 
all  history  proves,  of  all  ages.  See  Rom.  i.  16-32.  So  truly 
does  Rom.  iii.  picture  heathen  nations,  in  general,  that  some 
of  our  missionaries  have  been  charged  by  heathen,  in  whose 
hands  they  have  placed  Romans,  with  having  written  the  ac- 
count from  what  they  saw  among  them  as  missionaries !  Such 
able  scholars,  but  heterodox  in  doctrine,  as  Bahr,  have  incon- 
testably  proved  the  dissimilarity,  in  all  essential  respects,  of 
Jewish  and  heathen  religious  ceremonies ;  so  have  Fairbairn, 
eial 

The  holy  significancy  of  Old  Testament  ceremonies  not 
only  consisted  essentially  of  such  ceremonies  as  were  adapted 
to  educate  the  people  to  the  realization  of  the  necessity  of  "the 
better  life,"  but  the  state  of  heart  necessary  to  their  accept- 
ance in  this  worship  united  to  inculcate  the  same  holiness  of 
spirit.  To  offer  sacrifices,  etc. ,  without  repentance — to  con- 
tinue their  sin,  only  rendered  the  sacrifices  a  "stench"  in  the 
nostrils  of  Jehovah,  Hence,  the  spiritual  penitent  felt:  "For 
thou  desirest  not  sacrifice;  else  would  I  give  it:  thou  delight- 
est  not  in  burnt-offering" — /.  e.^  when  unaccompanied  with 


152  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

repentance.  ''The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a  brokcfi  spirit:  a 
';;oken  and  a  contrite //t'^r/,  O  God,  thou  wilt  not  despise." 
•'The7i^^ — alluding  to  restoration  upon  the  condition  of  such 
a  spirit — he  says,  "shalt  thou  be  pleased  with  the  sacrifices  of 
righteousness,  with  burnt-offering  and  whole  burnt-offering: 
then  shall  they  offer  bullocks  upon  thine  altar." — Ps.  li.  16-19; 
xl.  6;  I  Sam.  iii.  14;  xv.  22;  Prov.  xv.  8;  xxi.  3;  Hosea 
viii.  13;  xii.  11;  Isa.  i,  11—20;  Jer.  vi.  15-35,  etc.  To  sup- 
port a  theory,  the  school  of  Prof.  Robertson  Smith  concludes 
from  these  Scriptures  that  they  absolutely  condemn  sacrifices, 
in  whatever  spirit  they  were  offered.  But,  in  view  of  their 
obvious  meaning,  that  they  are  not  accepted  without  the  moral 
spirit  of  which  they  were  but  the  external  part  or  expression; 
in  view  of  their  being  regarded,  by  the  same  writers  who  thus 
condemn  them,  as  of  divine  obligation  and  acceptable  to  God 
when  offered  in  the  right  spirit — see  i  Sam.  i.  24-28;  ii.  13, 
19,  27,  28;  iii.  i;  vii.  9,  10;  i  Kings  viii.  5;  i  Chron.  xxix. 
17-21;  2  Chron.  v.  6-14;  Nehemiah,  whole  of  chapter  ix., 
and  X.  35-39;  Ps.  cxviii.  27;  li.  19;  in  view  of  condemna- 
tion of  abuses,  being  an  implied  recognition  of  the  legitimacy 
of  the  thing  abused — saying  nothing  of  the  fact  of  these  sac- 
rifices being  recognized  in  that  part  of  the  Pentateuch  which 
this  school  acknowledges  to  belong  to  the  time  of  Moses 
("Davidson  following  Bleek  chiefly,  specifies  more  than  twenty 
chapters  of  Numbers  which  must  have  come  from  Moses  with 
very  slight  change,  among  which  the  passage  of  Exod.  xxv. 
31  was  probably  written  down  by  him  in  its  present  state." — 
Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  24,  25;  and  Robertson 
Smith,  unwittingly,  fatally  concedes:  "The  book  of  Deuter- 
onomy ....  reproduces  almost  every  precept  of  the 
older  code,  with  or  without  modification." — Old  Test,  in  Jew- 
ish Ch.,p.  65 — ni  Seaside  Library)  \  in  view  of  all  this,  such 
criticism  can  be  but  regarded  as  learned  trifling.     And,  when 


•  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED.  ,     1 53 

I  say  * 'learned  trifling,"  I  do  not  mention  the  certain  fact 
which  Dr.  Stebbins  mentions,  which  alone  leaves  the  fabric 
of  that  school, 

"Like  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision, 
Which     ....     shall  dissolve 
And  leave  not  a  rack  behind  :" 

' '  There  is  not  a  particle  of  reliable  evidence^  either  external  or 
internal^  that  a  single  law  recorded  in  the  Fe?itateiich  was  the  work 
of  the  per'iod  subsequent  to  Moses.  ^^ — A  Study  of  the  Pentateuch, 
p.  2  21.  Pardon  this  digression;  for  the  nature  of  such  criti- 
cism hardly  permits  an  avoidance  of  this  digression  in  this 
connection. 

To  return  to  the  moral  disposition  of  the  offerer  of  the  sac- 
rifices as  evincing  the  purity  of  Old  Testament  Ethics,  I  will 
close  this  point  by  the  unimpeachable  statement  of  one  of 
Germany  greatest  scholars:  "There  can  not  be  produced  out 
of  the  whole  Old  Testament  one  single  passage  in  which  the 
notion  that  sacrifices  of  themselves,  and  apart  from  the  state 
of  mind  of  the  offerers,  are  well  pleasing  to  God."' — Heng- 
stenber^s  Introd.  to  Ps.  xxxii. — quoted  by  Fairbairn.  ''What 
is  called  the  ceremonial  law  was,  therefore,  in  its  more  imme- 
diate and  primary  aspect,  an  exhibition  by  means  of  symbol- 
ical rites  and  institutions  of  the  righteousness  of  the  decalogue, 
and  a  discipline  through  which  the  heart  might  be  brought 
into  conformity  to  the  righteousness  itself" — Fairbairn' s  Ty- 
pology of  Scripture,  Vol.  IT,  p.  157.  I  may  here  mention  one 
illustration  by  a  great  German  scholar,  Lange:  "Obedience 
as  spiritual  bearing  is  the  first  duty  of  priests.  Next  the 
hand,  as  symbolizing  human  activity,  is  especially  consecrated 
by  being  sprinkled  with  the  blood;  finally,  the  great  toe  of 
the  right  foot,  as  symbolizing  the  walk  of  life  in  general." — 
Quoted  on  page  56,  of  Samuel  Toes  Curtiss'  Tigersoll  a  fid 
Moses.  In  the  ceremonial  of  the  Old  Testament,  then,  we 
have  the  moral  purity  of  its  ethics. 


154  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Some  of  the  Miscellaneous  Hebrew  Laws,  relating 
TO  Ethics. 

I.  Laws  relating  to  charity. 

a.  The  extreme  part  of  the  harvest-fields  was  left  unhar- 
vested  for  the  poor.  "And  when  ye  reap  the  harvest  of  your 
land,  thou  shalt  not  wholly  reap  the  corners  of  the  field :  .  . 
.  .  thou  shalt  leave  them  for  the  poor." — Lev.  xix.  9.  The 
Hebrew  for  'corners' —  HKtD  —peak — means  the  extreme  side 
or  quarter  of  the  field." — Ges.  Lex.  Heb.  In  our  version,  it 
is  rendered  side  in  nearly  fifty  instances. 

b.  The  gleanings  of  the  field  were  left  for  the  poor. 
**  Neither  shalt  thou  gather  the  gleanings  of  thy  harvest: 
thou  shalt  leave  them  for  the  poor." — Lev.  xix.  9,  10;  Deut. 
xxiv.  21.  This  gleaning  for  the  poor  'Svas  of  the  fruit-trees 
as  well  as  of  the  corn-fields." — Deut.  xxiv.  21.  From  Ruth 
ii.  6,  8,  9,  etc.,  we  learn  that  the  poor  often  lived  well  of 
this  gleaning.  Hence  the  proverb:  ''Is  not  the  gleaning  of 
the  grapes  of  Ephraim  better  than  the  vintage  of  Abi-ezer." 
Judges  viii.  2.     See  Isa.  xvii.  5,  6;  Jer.  xlix.  9;  Micah  vii.  i. 

c.  A  forgotten  sheaf  must  be  left  in  the  field  for  the  glean- 
ers. "When  thou  cuttest  down  thy  harvest  in  thy  field  and 
hast  forgotten  a  sheaf,  thou  shalt  not  turn  again  to  fetch  it: 
it  shall  be  for  the  stranger,  for  the  fatherless,  and  for  the 
widow." — Deut.  xxiv.  19.     This  included  either  harvest  or 


OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 55 

fruits  forgotten.     Read  from  the  nineteenth  to  the  twenty-first 
verse. 

d.  Permission  to  eat  when  passing  through  a  vineyard  or 
field.  **When  thou  comest  into  thy  neighbor's  vineyard,  then 
thou  mayest  eat  grapes  at  thine  own  pleasure. "  Read  Deut. 
xxiii.  24,  25.  Lest  they  should  wrong  their  neighbor  by  tak- 
ing some  with  them,  the  law  said,  ''Thou  shalt  not  put  any  in 
thy  vessel,"  etc. 

e.  Not  permitted  to  keep  "the  pledge"  of  the  poor  over 
night.  ''The  practice  of  taking  pledges  for  the  payment  of 
debts,  immemorial  throughout  the  East  (Job  xxii.  6;  xxiv.  3, 
9;  for  the  present  age,  see  Land  and  Book),  was  regulated 
by  the  Mosaic  law."  "And  if  any  man  be  a  poor  man,  thou 
shalt  not  sleep  with  his  pledge.  In  any  case,  thou  shalt  de- 
liver him  the  pledge  again  when  the  sun  goeth  down."— Deut. 
xxiv.  12,  13.  This  law  was  about  equivalent  to  a  prohibition 
of  taking  a  very  poor  man's  pledge. 

/.  Not  permitted  to  enter  a  man's  house  to  '  'fetch  his  pledge. " 
"The  man  to  whom  thou  dost  lend  shall  bring  out  the  pledge." 
— Deut.  xxiv.  10,  II.  This  law,  by  forbidding  the  creditor 
to  enter  his  neighbor's  house,  made  him  respect  the  rights  and 
privacy  of  his  neighbor;  at  the  same  time,  by  making  his 
neighbor  bring  out  the  pledge,  it  taught  his  neighbor  to  respect 
the  rights  of  his  creditor. 

g.  "No  man  shall  take  the  nether  or  upper  mill-stone  to 
pledge:  for  he  taketh  a  man's  Hfe  to  pledge." — Deut.  xxiv. 
6.  In  the  East,  each  one  had  a  small  hand-mill,  upon  which 
he  w^as  daily  dependent  to  grind  meal  to  fill  the  mouths  of  his 
wife  and  little  ones  and  himself.  That  could  not  be  taken 
for  debt;  for  such  "taketh  a  man's  life  to  pledge." 

h.  Thou  shalt  not  "take  the  widow's  raiment  to  pledge." 
— Deut.  xxiv.  17. 

/.  The  outer  garment  could  not  be  kept  over  night  as  a 


156  OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

pledge.  (Dent.  xxiv.  13;  Exod.  xxii.  26.)  This  was  a  sort 
of  coarse  blanket  011  which  they  were  dependent  for  a  bed 
at  night.  Concerning  some  of  these  pledges — the  regulations 
— which  the  people  by  times  and  manners  then  understood, 
Clarke  says:  "The  opinion  of  the  rabbins  is,  that  whatever 
a  man  needed  for  the  support  of  life,  he  had  the  use  of  it 
when  absolutely  necessary,  though  it  was  pledged.  It  is  very 
likely  that  the  pledge  was  restored  by  night  only,  and  that  he 
who  pledged  it  brought  it  back  to  his  creditor  next  morning." 
—  Commentary  on  Exod.  xxii.  26.  While  I  think  Clarke  makes 
too  wide  an  application  of  this  law  in  connection  with  some 
of  these  pledges,  it  seems  worthy  of  consideration. 

j.  They  were  forbidden  to  take  usury  of  the  poor.  The 
Hebrew  H^J — nashah^  H^-^ — nashak  —  rendered  "usury," 
primarily  signify  (a)  "to  bear  burden,"  {p)  "to  bite,"  as  a 
serpent.  As  it  is  very  difficult  for  2.  poor  man  to  pay  borrowed 
money,  interest  added  to  it  is  like  a  crushing  burden,  a  ser- 
pent's bite — it  cripples  him  in  all  his  financial  interests.  The 
Lord,  therefore,  forbade  usury  of  the  poor.  See  Exod.  xxii. 
25-27;  Lev.  XXV.  35-37;  Neh.  vii.  8;  Ps.  xv.  5.  They  were 
commanded  to  help  the  poor,  by  loaning  without  interest. 
"And  if  thy  brother  be  waxen  poor,  and  his  hand  faileth 
(marginal  rendering,  which  is  the  Hebrew  meaning)  with 
thee ;  thou  shalt  then  relieve  him :  yea,  though  he  be  a  stranger, 
and  a  sojourner." — Lev.  xxv.  35,  36. 

k.  Every  third  year  the  tenth  of  all  their  increase  had  to 
be  given  to  the  poor.      (Deut.  xxiv.  28,  29.) 

/.  From  the  produce  of  the  land  in  sabbatical  years,  the 
poor  were  to  have  their  portion.      (Lev.  xxv.  6 ;   Exod.  xxiii. 

"•) 

ni.  Every  jubilee  year  those  who  lost  their  lands  for  debt 
nad  them  returned  to  them.     (Lev.  xxv.  2  5-2 8.) 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  1 57 

n.  The  poor  were  to  partake  of  all  the  entertainments  at 
the  feasts  of  weeks  and  the  feasts  of  tabernacles;  also,  of  the 
passover.  (Exod.  xxiii.  14;  xxxiii.  34;  Deut.  xvi.  11,  14; 
Neh.  viii.  10.)  The  feast  of  weeks  or  Pentecost  continued 
one  day,  in  the  spring;  the  feast  of  tabernacles  continued 
seven  days,  in  autumn,  followed  by  a  day  of  holy  convoca- 
tion. These  feasts  brought  the  rich  and  the  poor  together. 
Thus  they  cultivated  a  oneness  of  sympathy  and  interest,  and 
kept  the  people  on  an  equality.  Under  this  law  there  could 
be-jfo  prejudices,  isolations  and  inequalities  between  the  rich 
and  the  poor,  as  there  are  in  other  nations  and  in  our  own. 
Among  heathen  we  have  the  contrary.  For  instance,  Con- 
fucius says:  "Have  no  friends  not  equal  to  yourself." — Con- 
fucius, by  Legge,  p.  119. 

0.  Permanent  bondage  for  debt,  as  in  other  nations,  for- 
bidden,     (Deut.  XV.  12-15;   Lev.  xxv.  39-42,  47-54.) 

/.  They  were  not  permitted  to  defraud  their  hired  servants 
of  their  wages.  Such  was  the  Lord's  regard  for  the  poor  that 
they  had  to  be  paid  their  wages  at  the  close  of  the  day.  (Lev. 
xix.  13.) 

I  have  now  called  attention  to  sixteen  provisions  for  the 
poor  in  the  laws  of  Moses.  They  are  of  great  variety  and 
of  perfect  adaptation  to  the  condition  of  the  poor.  They 
manifest  the  deepest  and  most  tender  spirit  of  humanity.  No 
other  nation — not  even  of  modern  tmies  has  ever  made  so 
ample,  tender  and  wise  provisions  for  the  wants  of  the  poor, 
and  for  the  equality  and  the  oneness  of  the  rich  and  the  poor. 
The  beauty  of  these  laws  not  only  appears  in  their  meeting 
these  necessities,  but  in  their  cultivation  of  the  spirit  of  char- 
ity and  universal  brotherhood.  The  reader  will  notice  that 
they  were  for  the  stranger,  too.  Hence,  charity  became  a 
fundamental  article  in  the  Jewish  religion.  Beautiful  is  that 
picture  of  the  righteous  man  in  the  112th  Psalm:   "He  hath 


158  OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

dispersed,  he  hath  given  to  the  poor;  Jiis  righteousness  endur- 
Q\h  forever.^ ^  Such  was  the  influence  of  these  laws  that,  in 
our  Savior's  time,  the  Pharisees  believed  charity  would  cover 
all  their  sins.  ''Alms-giving  rose  to  the  dignity  of  a  system, 
and  the  virtue  that  showeth  mercy  and  lendeth  became  the 

leading  idea  of  righteousness It  was  mentioned  as  a 

marked  excellence  of  a  certain  predecessor  of  Hillel,  .... 
that  his  door  opened  towards  the  street  and  that  the  poor 
found  with  him  the  welcome  of  children." — The  Apocrypha, 
by  Bissell,  pp.  11,  29;  Luke  xix.  8;  Matt.  vi.  1-4.  ''In  "the 
women's  court  in  the  temple  there  were  thirteen  receptacles 
for  voluntary  offerings  for  the  poor  (Mark  xii.  41),  one  of 
which  was  devoted  to  alms  for  education  of  poor  children. 
Before  the  captivity,  there  was  no  trace  of  permission  of  men- 
dicancy. .  .  .  After  the  captivity,  ...  a  definite  system 
of  alms-giving  was  introduced,  and  even  enforced  under  pen- 
alties. The  collections  were  two  kinds  :  (i)  Of  money  for  the 
poor  of  the  city  only,  made  by  two  collectors,  received  in  a 
chest  or  box  in  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath,  and  distributed 
by  the  three  every  evening.  Special  collections  and  distribu- 
tions were  also  made  on  fast-days." — Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  Vol. 
I.,  p.  71. 

2.   Hebrew  laws  of  justice. 

a.  The  man  who  disabled  another  in  a  fight  had  to  pay 
him  for  all  the  loss  of  his  time  and  expenses  while  disabled. 
(Exod.  xxi.  18,  19.) 

b.  "He  that  smiteth  a  man,  so  that  he  die,  shall  surely  be 
put  to  death." — Exod.  xxi.  12.  This  refers  to  intentional  or 
malicious  killing.  "The  practice  of  inflicting  capital  pun- 
ishment ....  is  thus  justified  by  that  great  and  good  man. 
Sir  Matthew  Hale :  'When  offenses  grow  enormous,  frequent 
and  dangerous  to  a  kingdom  and  State,  destructive  or  highly 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 59 

pernicious  to  civil  society,  and  to  the  great  insecurity  of  the 
kingdom  and  its  inhabitants,  severe  punishment,  and  even 
death  itself,  is  necessary  to  be  annexed  to  laws,  in  many  cases, 
by  the  prudence  of  lawgivers.'" — Ch.  Blacksione.,  Vol.  II.,  b. 
4,  sec.  9.  In  the  New  Testament,  {a)  in  recognizing  the  pur- 
ity of  Old  Testament  morals;  ip)  in  recognizing  the  use  of 
the  sword — this  Old  Testament  law  is  emphasized.  (Luke 
xxii.  36;  Rom.  xiii.  4.)  Neither  life  nor  liberty  can  be  taken 
from  any  man,  save  as  God,  to  whom  both  belong,  has  dele- 
gated the  right  to  do  so  to  human  government.  This  he  has 
done.     (Rom.  xiii.  1-7.) 

c.  ''If  a  thief  be  found  breaking  up  (in),  and  be  smitten 
that  he  die,  there  shall  no  blood  be  shed  for  him." — Exod. 
xxii.  3.  The  man  who  will  break  into  a  house  when  all 
nature  is  in  repose,  and  the  owner  of  the  house  disarmed,  is 
justly  slain. 

d.  But  ''if  the  sun  be  risen  upon  him,  there  shall  be  blood 
shed  for  him." — Exod.  xxii.  3.  In  such  case,  the  owner 
could  save  his  property  and  life  without  killing  the  thief.  So 
the  law  reads,  ' '  For  he  should  make  full  restitution :  if  he 
have  nothing,  then  he  shall  be  sold  for  his  theft." — Verse  3. 

e.  Feticide  was  punished  with  death,  (Exod.  xxi.  22,  23.; 
It  was  death,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  more  heinous  crime  than  the 
murder  of  one  who  can  defend  himself.  This  law  teaches 
that  feticide  is  a  crime,  that  it  is  murder.  It  impliedly  teaches 
that  it  matters  not  how,  or  by  whom,  committed,  God  will  require 
the  one  who  commits  it  to  answer  for  the  vilest  7?iurder.  The 
lesson  of  this  law  needs  to  now  be  preached.  The  Old  School 
Presbyterian  Church  well  condemns  this  crime:  "This  As- 
sembly regards  the  destruction  by  parents  of  their  offspring 
before  birth  with  abhorrence;  as  a  crime  against  God  and 
nature ;  and,  as  the  frequency  of  such  murders  can  no  longer 
be  concealed,  we  hereby  warn  those  who  are  guilty  of  this 


l6o  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

crime  that,  except  they  repent,  they  can  not  inherit  eternal 
Hfe." — Extract  from  Minutes,  May,  1869.  Bishop  Coxe  says: 
' '  I  warn  you  against  the  blood  guiltiness  of  infanticide.  If 
there  be  a  special  damnation  for  those  who  shed  innocent 
blood,  what  must  be  the  portion  of  those  who  have  no  mercy 
upon  their  own  flesh." — Bishop  Coxe's  Pastoral  Letter,  1869. 
In  several  of  our  States  the  laws  are  severe  against  this  mur- 
der. 

/.  If  the  woman  and  child  were  only  injured,  the  husband 
pronounced  the  penalty  on  the  man  who  caused  the  hurt. 
(Exod.  xxi.  22,  23.)  The  penalty  was  confirmed  by  the 
"judges."  The  injured  husband  was  justly  permitted  to  pro- 
nounce the  penalty,  under  limitation  of  the  law.  But  our 
laws,  instead  of  giving  the  injured  husband  justice  against 
any  man  who  insults  the  companion  of  his  life,  by  a  trivial 
sentence  only  mock  him. 

g,  ''If  an  ox  gore  a  man  or  a  woman,  that  they  die,  then 
the  ox  shall  surely  be  stoned,  and  his  flesh  shall  not  be  eaten; 
but  the  owner  of  the  ox  shall  be  quit." — Exod.  xxi.  28.  In 
this  case  the  owner  was  not  so  much  to  blame,  and  lost  only 
his  ox.  To  increase  the  regard  for  the  sacredness  of  human 
life,  this  ox  was  stoned  to  death,  and  his  flesh  pronounced 
"unclean"  or  unfit  to  eat.  On  the  minds  of  so  barbarous  a 
people  as  the  Jews  then  were,  this  was  an  impressive  lesson. 

h.  "But  if  the  ox  were  wont  to  push  with  his  horn  in  time 
past,  and  it  hath  been  testified  to  his  owner,  and  he  hath  not 
kept  him  in,  but  that  he  hath  killed  a  man  or  a  woman ;  the 
ox  shall  be  stoned,  and  his  owner  also  shall  be  put  to  death." 
— Exod.  xxi.  29.  In  this  case  the  owner  was  justly  put  to 
death  because  he  disregarded  the  law,  the  warning  and  the 
sacredness  of  human  life.  His  keeping  such  an  ox,  under 
these  conditions,  made  him  responsible  for  what  the  ox  did. 
As  there  was  a  difference  between  this  and  direct  murder,  the 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED,  l6l 

man  might  redeem  his  Hfe.     (Verses  30,   31.)     Besides,  he 
lost  his  ox  (bull). 

/.  "If  the  ox  shall  push  a  man-servant  or  a  maid-servant ;  he 
shall  give  unto  their  master  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  and  the  ox 
shall  be  stoned." — Exod.  xxi.  32.  The  people,  valuing  a 
servant  very  highly,  to  lay  as  a  penalty  upon  the  owner  of  the 
bull,  the  price  of  the  slave  and  the  loss  of  his  bull,  was  sufii- 
cient.  To  have  enforced  a  severer  penalty,  owing  to  the  bar- 
barous and  rebellious  nature  of  the  people,  may  have  been 
impracticable — if  necessary.  The  death  of  the  ox  being  re- 
quired in  the  case  of  the  servant  as  well  as  in  the  case  of 
others,  taught  the  equal  sacredness  of  the  servant's  life.  To 
as  barbarous  a  people  as  they  were,  considering  that  a  serv- 
ant's life  among  heathen  nations  has  ever  been  of  little  sacred- 
ness, this  law  was  exceedingly  severe  and  salutary. 

j.  "If  a  man  smite  the  eye  of  his  servant,  or  the  eye  of 
his  maid,  that  it  perish;  he  shall  let  him  go  free  for  his  eye's 
sake.  And  if  he  smite  out  his  man-servant's  tooth,  or  his 
maid-servant's  tooth;  he  shall  let  him  go  free  for  his  tooth's 
sake." — Exod.  xxi.  26,  27.  What  other  nation,  ancient  or 
modern,  so  protected  their  servants  that  such  ill-treatment  re- 
sulted in  the  master's  loss  of  his  slave?  Of  course,  there  have 
been  exceptions  to  the  ill-treatment  of  slaves.  But  here  is 
the  universal  law  for  one  of  the  greatest  nations  of  history. 
Lecky  says:  "In  the  later  days  of  the  republic  (of  Rome), 
and  during  the  empire,  the  sufferings  of  slaves  were  such  that 
it  is  impossible  to  read  them  without  a  shudder.  The  full 
ferocity  of  the  national  character  was  directed  against  them." 
— Lecky' s  Hist,  of  Rationalism^  Vol.  II.,  p.  226.  (See  the  sec- 
tion of  this  book  on  Hebrew  slavery.) 

k.  If  a  man's  ox  fell  into  the  pit,  left  open  by  his  neighbor, 
the  neighbor  "shall  make  it  good." — Exod.  xxi.  34. 


1 62  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

/.  But  it  was  his  to  make  of  it  what  he  could,  as  he  paid  its 
value  (verse  34). 

m.  **If  one  man's  ox  hurt  another's,  that  he  die;  then  they 
shall  sell  the  live  ox,  and  divide  the  money  of  it;  and  the  dead 
ox  also  shall  they  divide." — Exod.  xxi.  35.  As  the  owner 
was  somewhat  justly  responsible  for  keeping  so  dangerous  an 
ox,  he  had  to  lose  about  half  its  value. 

11.  "Or  if  it  be  known  that  the  ox  hath  used  (/.  e.,  a  noto- 
rious case)  to  push  in  time  past,  and  the  owner  hath  not  kept 
him  in ;  he  shall  surely  pay  ox  for  ox ;  and  the  dead  shall  be 
his  own." — Exod.  xxi.  36.  Notice  how  equally  just  these 
laws  are.  While  restoring  to  the  owner  of  the  killed  ox  its 
value,  it  does  not  give  him  more  than  that,  in  that  it  leaves 
whatever  can  be  got  out  of  the  sale  of  the  dead  ox  to  the  one 
who  pays  the  loss. 

0.  "If  a  man  shall  steal  an  ox,  or  a  sheep,  and  kill  it,  or 
sell  it;  he  shall  restore  five  oxen  for  an  ox,  and  four  sheep 
for  a  sheep." — Exod.  xxii.  i.  This  law  punished  the  thief, 
paid  the  owner  for  his  loss,  provided  the  loss  of  a  favorite 
animal. 

/.  "If  the  theft  be  certainly  found  in  his  hand  alive,  whether 
it  be  ox,  or  ass,  or  sheep;  he  shall  restore  double." — Exod. 
xxii.  4.  In  case  of  restoration,  the  man  suffered  little  or  no 
loss  by  the  theft.  Hence,  the  thief  was  punished  by  the  loss 
of  one  of  his  own  animals;  or,  if  he  had  none  of  his  own, 
was  sold  for  debt. 

q.  For  other  losses  which  any  one  had  inflicted  on  his 
neighbor  he  had  to  make  "restitution."  (Exod.  xxii.  5,  6, 
9.)  Space  does  not  permit  me  to  take  up  all  the  laws  of  this 
class  and  show  their  wisdom  and  justice. 

r.    "Thou  shalt  not  raise  a  false  report." — Exod.  xxiii.  i. 

s.  ' '  Put  not  thine  hand  with  the  wicked  to  be  an  unright- 
eous witness." — Exod.  xxiii.  i. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 63 

/.  ''Thou  shalt  not  follow  a  multitude  to  do  evil" — to  be 
''popular." — Exod.  xxiii.  2. 

u.  "Neither  shalt  thou  speak  in  a  cause  to  decline  after 
many  to  wrest  judgment. " — Exod.  xxiii.  2.  No  taking  sides 
in  court  to  be  with  "popular"  sentiment  and  with  the  rich. 

V.  Neither  permitted  to  let  sympathy  for  the  poor  prevent 
them  from  receiving  the  infliction  of  justice  at  the  hand  of 
the  law.  (Exod.  xxiii.  3,  6;  Lev.  xix.  15.)  But  Confucius 
taught  the  grossest  dishonesty.  He  says:  "The  father  con- 
ceals the  misconduct  of  the  son,  and  the  son  conceals  the 
misconduct  of  the  father.  Uprightness  is  to  be  found  in  this." 
—  Confucius'  Worksop.  205. 

w.  Judges  forbidden  to  take  gifts,  lest  it  "blindeth  the 
wise." — Exod.  xxiii.  8. 

X,  Forbidden  to  disrespect  civil  authority,  by  reviling  judges 
and  rulers.     (Exod.  xxii.  28.*) 

y.  "Thou  shalt  not  go  up  and  down  as  a  talebearer." — Lev. 
xix.  16. 

z.  "Thou  shalt  not  curse  the  deaf,  nor  put  a  stumbling- 
block  before  the  blind." — Lev.  xix.  14.  This  means,  "You 
shall  not  make  sport  of  the  deaf  by  cursing  him,  as  if  he 
could  hear  you;  you  shall  not  put  a  stumbling-block  in  the 
way  of  the  blind,  as  if  he  could  see.  No  "fun"  over  men's 
"misfortunes." 

aa.  Restore  straying  property  to  its  owner,  by  taking  it  back 
"again  to  thy  brother." — Deut.  xxii.  i. 

^^'^^'^yy^—elohim  and  Qtoi — theoi — plural  in  Hebrew  and  Greek, 

in  a  few  Scriptures  are  applied  to  judges,  on  the  ground  of  their  offi- 
cial dignity  as  the  representatives  of  God  in  civil  government.  See 
and  compare  Rom.  xiii.  1-6;  Exod.  xxii.  28;  Psa.  Ixxxii.  6;  John  x. 
34." — Tholuck  on  John  x.  34.  Adam  Clarke's  attempt  to  apply  elohim 
to  God,  in  Exod.  xxii.  28,  is  absurd ;  and,  in  attempting  to  bolster  up 
this  interpretation,  by  making  the  Hebrew  ^  there  render  it  "like 

gods"  is  equally  futile,  since  ^  is  not  there  joined  to  D^H /^^• 


164  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

hb.  But  if  the  one  meeting  the  straying  property  did  not, 
know  whose  it  was,  ''it  shall  be  with  thee  until  thy  brotherj 
seek  after  it,  and  thou  shalt  restore  it  to  him  again."— Deut- 
xxii.  2.  Thus  the  stray  was  prevented  from  straying  off  where 
its  owner  might  never,  or  with  great  difficulty  and  expense, 
find  it.  The  Jews  were  not  permitted  to  live  on  the  murderer 
Cain's  selfish  policy,  the  one  on  which  we  so  generally  hve. 

cc.  Perfect  justice  in  measures  and  weights  a  law." — Deut. 
XXV.  13-15. 

I  have  now  noticed  thirty  representative  laws  on  justice. 
They  display  perfect  wisdom,  justice  and  humanity.  They 
are  but  a  part  of  the  laws  of  Hebrew  justice.  I  refer  the 
reader  to  Josephus'  Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  h.  4,  ch.  8,  for  a 
fuller  notice  of  these  laws.  This  book  admits  of  no  more 
room  for  them.  Josephus,  though  not  always  correct  in  his 
Antiquities,  is  generally  a  reliable  expositor. 

3.  Jewish  courts  of  justice  and  trials.* 

a.  "As  Moses  directed,  judges  and  scribes  were  appointed 
for  every  city,  with  jurisdiction  over  the  surrounding  villages. 
Cases  of  great  importance,  and  appeals,  were  carried  to  the 
civil  ruler,  or  to  the  high  priest.    (Deut.  xvi.  18;  xvii.  8,  9.)" 

b.  "The  court  consisted  of  a  judge  or  judges,  and,  at  least 
in  later  times,  of  a  scribe  who  wrote  down  the  sentence  and 
the  particulars  of  the  trial  or  cause.  Before  them  stood  the 
accused,  the  accuser,  and  the  witnesses.  Two  witnesses  were 
necessary  to  establish  any  charge,  and  they  were  examined 
separately,  in  the  presence  of  the  accused.  (Numb.  xxxv. 
30;  Deut.  xvii.  6;  Matt.  xxvi.  60.)" — Hist,  of  I'alestine^  by 
Kitto,  pp.  122,  123. 

••=  German  scholars  use  "Hebrew"  to  indicate  the  period  of  Israel 
previous  to  close  of  Old  Testament  prophecy,  and  the  "Jewish"  the 
period  after  that.  In  this  work  there  is  no  distinction  in  the  use  of 
the  two  words. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 65 

c.  The  punishment,  or  its  equivalent,  which  the  false  wit- 
ness endeavored  to  swear  upon  another,  he  had  to  suffer  him- 
self.    (Deut.  xix.  6-19;   Lev.  v.  i.) 

d.  The  witnesses  must  "be  the  first''  to  put  hands  upon 
the  condemned  to  put  him  to  death.  (Deut.  xiii.  9;  xvii.  7.) 
This  law  would  make  a  witness  give  his  testimony  very  care- 
fully; for  few  men  can  help  shrinking  from  such  a  deed. 

e.  The  accused — not  being  condemned — was  permitted  to 
testify  in  his  own  behalf.  (Exod.  xxii.  11;  Numb.  v.  19-22; 
I  Kings  viii.  31.) 

/.  The  judges  must  be  the  wisest  and  best  of  men.    (Exod. 

xviii.  21.) 
g.  They  were  to  be  strictly  impartial.     (Exod.  xxiii.  6-9.) 
h.   All  important  matters,  and  matters  they  could  not  settle 

among  themsejves,   must  come  before  these  judges.      Men 

were  not  permitted  to  take  the  laws  into  their  own  hands. 

(Deut.  xvi.  18;  xvii.  8,  9.) 

4.  Jewish  punishments. 

a.  These  punishments  were  generally  life  for  life,  eye  for 
eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  crime. 
(Exod.  xxi.  23,  25.) 

b.  In  other  cases,  indemnification  or  restitution  and  indem- 
nification made  by  the  offender.     (Exod.  xxi.  30;  xxii.  1-6.) 

c.  Corporal  punishments.     (Deut.  xxv.  2,  3.) 

d.  Excommunications.  (Numb.  xv.  30,  31.)  As  this  in- 
volved many  privations,  it  was  much  feared. 

e.  Rendering  the  crime  exceedingly  odious  by  posthumous 
punishments.  (Numb.  xxv.  4,  5;  Deut.  xxi.  22,  23;  Lev. 
XX.  14;  xxi.  9;  Joshua  vii.  15,  25,  26;  2  Sam.  xviii.  17.)  This 
hanging,  burning,  and  raising  a  heap  of  stones  over  the  body 
were  very  impressive  and  restraining. 

Compare  the  following  from  Prof.  Monier  Williams'  Indian 


1 66  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

Wisdom — Hindoo — that  glorious  (?)  Veda  land — as  found  in 
Mozely's  Ruling  Ideas  of  Early  Ages— p.  i86:  ''The  three 
most  conspicuous  features  of  Manus'  penal  laws  are  exactly 
those  which  mark  the  earliest  forms  of  criminal  legislation. 
....  'With  whatever  member  of  the  body  a  low-born  man 
may  injure  a  superior,  the  very  member  of  his  must  be  muti- 
lated. A  once-born  man,  insulting  twice-born  men  with 
abusive  language,  must  have  his  tongue  cut  out.  Should  he 
mention  their  name  and  caste  with  insulting  expressions,  as 
Hallo,  there!  Yaj  na  datta,  vilest  Brahmans,  a  red-hot  iron 
spike,  ten  fingers  long,  is  to  be  thrust  into  his  mouth.  Should 
he,  through  arrogance,  attempt  to  instruct  a  Brahman  in  his 
duty,  the  king  is  to  have  boiling  oil  poured  into  his  mouth 
and  ears.  Thieves  are  to  have  their  hands  cut  off,  and  then 
to  be  impaled  on  a  sharp  stake.  A  goldsmith  detected  in 
committing  frauds  is  to  have  his  body  cut  in  pieces  with  a 
razor.'  It  will  be  observed  that  a  graduated  scale  is  pre- 
scribed, according  to  the  rank  of  the  offender  and  the  class 
to  which  he  belongs :  Thus,  'a  king  must  never  kill  a  Brah- 
man, though  he  may  be  found  guilty  of  all  possible  crimes ; 
let  him  expel  him  from  the  kingdom  unharmed  in  body,  and 
intact  in  all  his  property.  There  is  no  greater  injustice  on 
earth  than  the  killing  of  a  Brahman.  The  king,  therefore, 
must  not  harbor  a  thought  about  putting  him  to  death.  A 
Kshatriya  insulting  a  Brahman  must  be  fined  one  hundred 
panas;  a  Vaisya  doing  the  same  must  pay  one  hundred  and 
fifty  or  two  hundred  panas ;  a  Sudra  doing  the  same  must  re- 
ceive corporal  punishment.'"  The  reader  will  observe  the 
cruelty,  the  vindictiveness,  the  partiality,  the  lack  of  wisdom 
in  these  laws,  and  their  incomparable  inferiority  to  the  Old 
Testament  laws.  Yet  infidels  tell  the  people  of  the  "barbar- 
ity," etc.,  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  "beauty"  of 
Hindoo,  etc.,  laws! 


old  testament  ethics  vindicated.  1 67 

5.  Hebrew  cities  of  refuge. 

With  the  people  of  that  age  it  was  the  custom  when  a  per- 
son was  slain  for  his  nearest  relative  to  take  upon  him  the 
office  of  avenger,  and  rest  not  till  he  had  slain  the  homicide. 
A  practice  so  liable  to  abuse  and  endless  feuds  could  not  be 
endured  in  any  well-organized  community.  ''The  law,  there- 
fore, provided  for  the  mitigation  of  its  evils,"  as  the  people 
were  not  sufficiently  educated  for  its  abolishment.  ' '  Six  cities, 
in  different  parts  of  the  country,  were  appointed  as  cities  of 
refuge,  to  any  of  which  the  unintentional  manslayer  might 
hasten ;  and  when  he  had  reached  it,  and  while  he  remained 
in  it,  he  was  safe  from  the  avenger."  "The  elders  of  the 
city  of  refuge  were  to  hear  his  case  and  protect  him  till 
he  could  be  tried  before  the  authorities  of  his  own  city.  If 
the  act  was  then  decided  to  have  been  involuntary,  he  was 
taken  back  to  the  city  of  refuge,  round  which  an  area  of 
2,000  cubits  was  assigned  as  the  limit  of  his  protection, 
and  was  to  remain  there  in  safety  till  the  death  of  the  high 
priest  for  the  time  being.  Beyond  the  city  of  refuge  the  re- 
venger might  slay  him;  but  after  the  high  priest's  death,  he 
might  return  to  his  home  with  impunity.  The  altar  at  first 
was  used  and  continued  in  use  with  the  cities  of  refuge." 
(Numb.  XXXV.  25,  28;  Joshua  xx.  4,  6;  Exod.  xxi.  14;  i 
Kings  ii.  28-34;  2  Kings  xi.  15.)  To  facilitate  the  slayer's 
flight,  the  roads  to  the  cities  of  refuge  were  kept  in  the  best 
condition.  (Deut.  xix.  3.)  Of  course,  if  the  judge  con- 
demned the  manslayer,  he  was  executed;  and  the  avenger 
was  the  executioner.  (Numb.  xxxv.  9-34.)  Prof.  Robertson 
Smith's  attempt  to  prove,  by  the  use  of  the  altar  as  a  ''refuge," 
that  the  provision  for  "cities  of  refuge"  in  Deut.  xix.  was 
after  the  time  of  David,  and  that  Deuteronomy  was  written, 
therefore,  after  David's  time,  is  wholly  arbitrary.    Facts  prove 


t68  old    TESTAiMLNT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

it  false;  for,  surely,  Joshua  xx.  was  provided  for  before  David's 
time.  Supposing  a  late  date  for  Joshua,  that  does  not  make 
the  evidently  early  provision  of  cities  of  refuge  in  Joshua  xx. 
of  late  provision.  But,  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  reasoii  for 
assigning  either  Deuteronomy  or  Joshua  to  a  later  date  than 
the  old  one.  These  provisions  rendered  justice,  gave  time 
for  cool  judgment  of  the  avenger,  protected  the  innocent 
homicide's  life,  at  the  same  time  made  him  more  careful,  etc. 
An  infidel  publication  finds  fault  with  these  provisions,  by- 
claiming  that  the  avenger  was  permitted  to  slay  the  manslayer, 
if  he  could  overtake  him  before. he  reached  the  refuge.  The 
law  says  no  such  thing.  On  the  contrary,  these  provisions 
were  to  prevent  this  very  thing.  See  Numb.  xxxv.  15;  Deut. 
iv.  42.  If  the  avenger  happened — which  was  improbable, 
considering  the  start  he  had  of  the  avenger — to  overtake  the 
manslayer,  nothing  could  have  prevented  his  killing  him.  But 
such  killing  would  have  subjected  the  slayer  to  the  severest 
penalty. 

Among  the  Hindoos  and  the  Germans,  a  specified  sum  of 
money  satisfied  for  accidental  or  other  homicides.  ''But," 
as  Prof.  Mozley  remarks,  "that  such  a.  judicial  arrangement 
as  this,  though  it  avoided  the  blind  blood  shed  of  the  law  of 
Goel,  its  striking  at  the  first  person  that  offered,  and  killing 
the  wrong  man,  if  it  so  happened,  or  mistaking  his  crime, 
could  never  have  sown  the  seed  of  civilized  justice.  For  reg- 
ular justice,  the  retributive  principle  was  necessary,  and  death 
for  death  was  the  only  way  of  meeting  murder — the  only  solid 
preventive  of  it.  In  however  rude  and  uncertain  a  form,  the 
law  of  Goel  was  the  trut,  germ  of  civilized  justice,  which,  san- 
guinary for  the  moment,  seized  hold  of  the  true  judicial  scope 
of  security  for  the  future.  The  fine  was  no  help  against  vio- 
lence to  come;  and,  as  Michaelis  observed,  'The  poor  man 
has  little  security  for  his  life  against  the  rich ;  because  the 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  iG) 

latter  nas  the  means  of  reverting  retaliation  by  persuading  the 
poor  man's  relations,  which  will  seldom  be  a  very  difficult 
matter,  to  accept  of  money  in  lieu  of  blood.'  The  fine  was 
an  oblique  and  distorted  aim  to  begin  with.  But  the  mstitu- 
tion  of  Goel  caught  up  the  first  movement  of  genuine  justice 
and  indignation  at  wrong,  gave  it  its  swing,  and  put  the  case 
in  its  hand.  .  .  .  And  a  law,  with  such  a  root  of  nobility 
and  justice  in  it,  was  not  unfit  for  adoption,  as  a  temporary 
curb  upon  human  nature,  till  it  could  admit  of  a  higher  dis- 
cipline by  the  divine  Lawgiver,  whose  necessary  poHcy,  when 
he  gave  laws  to  unenlightened  men,  was  accommodation." — 
Ruling  Ideas  of  Early  Ages,  p.  211. 

'^Mahomet  endeavored  to  mitigate  this  law,  which  was  so 
dangerous  to  innocence  (the  one  that  Moses'  law  so  well  mit- 
igatedj  ;  but,  unfortunately,  he  began  at  the  wrong  end.  For, 
instead  of  enjoining  a  previous  investigation  that  an  innocent 
person  might  not  suffer  instead  of  the  guilty,  he  recommended 
as  an  act  of  mercy,  pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God,  the  accept- 
ance of  a  pecuniary  compensation  from  the  actual  murderer, 
in  lieu  of  revenge.— ^^m//,  ch.  2.  .  .  .  This  strange  law, 
which,  in  fact,  makes  the  right  of  retaliation  quite  ineffectual 
to  the  security  of  a  man's  life,  because  it  can  be  compounded 
for  by  the  payment  of  money  to  his  kinsmen."— J//^/^a^//>, 
quoted  by  Mozley.  Not  only  this,  but  Mahomet  leaves  the 
rich  to  buy  themselves  from  the  penalty  of  murder.  Let  the 
reader  answer,  why  the  ^'barbarous"  book  that  the  Old  Test- 
ament is  represented,  by  infidels,  to  be,  is  so  just,  wise  and 
humane,  while  other  religions,  laws,  etc.,  are  the  reverse? 

6.  Jewish  political  institutions. 

Inasmuch  as  political  institutions  are  so  vitally  connected 
with  judicial  institutions— in  fact,  as  part  of  them— I  here 
notice  the  political  institutions  of  the  Jews. 


170  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

a.  "The  theory  of  the  Hebrew  constitution  supposed  God 
himself  was  the  King  and  general  I,awgiver  and  Governor  of 
the  nation."  It  presumed  that  the  prophets,  priests — espe- 
cially the  high  priest — and  judges,  were  the  interpreters  of  his 
will. 

b.  Outside  of  the  revealed  law,  which  was  their  unchange- 
able rule,  the  Hebrews  made  laws  for  themselves.  These 
laws  must  not  conflict  with  their  revealed  laws.  "By  the  con- 
stitution, as  originally  established  through  Moses,  the  consent 
of  all  the  tribes  was  required  to  give  effect  to  public  meas- 
ures." As  it  was  impossible  to  bring  a  matter  before  the 
whole  nation  at  once,  they  had  their  representatives.  (Numb. 
i.  16;  xvi.  2;  Deut.  xxix.  10;  Joshua  xxiii.  2.) 

c.  Moses  and  Joshua  were  only  temporary  officers.  The 
former  organized  the  nation;  the  latter  established  it  in  Ca- 
naan. 

d.  The  kings  were  God's  vice-kings  of  God.  (i  Sam.  xxii. 
50,  51;  Ps.  X.  16;  xxix.  10;  Ixxxix.  18;  xcviii.  6.) 

e.  The  same  laws  of  right  and  justice  were  for  both  king 
and  subjects.  The  only  difference  was  in  their  execution.  In- 
asmuch as  the  king  was  above  his  subjects,  the  Lord  punished 
him. 

In  concluding  this  chapter,  let  the  reader  remember  that 
it  presents  only  sufficient  of  the  judicial  and  political  institu- 
tions of  the  Jews  to  enable  the  reader  to  see  their  matchless 
wisdom,  justice,  humanity  and  righteousness.  So  perfect 
are  these  laws  and  institutions,  that  they  raised  a  barbarous 
people  from  barbarism  into  one  of  the  most  civilized  condi- 
tions of  the  earth.  See  last  chapter  of  this  book.  So  per- 
fect are  these  laws  and  institutions,  that  there  were  no  prisons, 
worthy  of  mention,  known  among  the  Jews  before  the  cap- 
tivity. At  that  time,  they  had  somewhat  departed  from  their 
laws.     Even  then  prisons  were  litde  needed.      It  was  only 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  I71 

when  the  Hebrews  became  so  mixed  with  other  nations  that 
they  built  prisons.  But  the  Canaanites  and  other  nations  had 
prisons  from  time  immemorial.  And  we  can  not  do  without 
them;  yea,  the  more  we  become  ^^  civilized^  ^  and  loosened  from 
Bible  lawSy  the  more  we  need  prisons! 

\ 

1 


172  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Old  Testament  Care  and  Tenderness  for  Animals. 

No  good-hearted  person  can  be  cruel  to  animals.  The  Jew 
received  his  animals  as  the  gift  of  God ;  as  having  feelings ; 
and  to  use  only  for  the  best  of  purposes ;  and  to  be  well  and 
tenderly  cared  for. 

Wuttke  says:  ''With  the  exception  of  the  Indians,  who 
adored  nature  as  the  revealed  divine  essence  itself,  no  people 
has  manifested  so  high  a  respect  for  nature  as  the  Israelites ; 
the  legislation  of  the  Old  Testament  surpasses  all  other  sys- 
tems in  a  considerate  sparing  of  nature.  Domestic  animals 
especially  are  placed  under  the  sparing  protection  and  care  of 
the  law  [Prov.  xii.  10];  the  mouth  of  the  threshing  ox  is  not 
to  be  muzzled  [Deut.  xxv.  4] ;  on  the  Sabbath  cattle  also  are 
given  rest  [Exod.  xx.  10];  in  the  Sabbatical  year  both  cattle 
and  beasts  are  to  pasture  on  the  fallow  lands  [Exod.  xxiii.  11; 
Lev.  xxv.  6,  7,  in  the  original];  the  beast  of  another  that  falls 
under  its  burden  or  loses  its  way  is  to  be  helped  [Exod.  xxiii. 
5;  Deut.  xxii.  i,  seq.;  compare  Matt.  xIl  ii].  Under  the 
same  category  (as  seething  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk)  falls  the 
prohibition  of  killing  the  calf,  the  kid,  the  lamb,  on  the  same 
day  with  its  mother  [Lev.  xxii.  28].  .  .  .  The  touching 
account  of  the  care  of  God  for  the  animals  at  the  time  of  the 
deluge,  is  an  emphatic  illustration  of  the  sparing  of  animals 
as  it  should  be  exerted  by  man;  God  also  includes  animals  in 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 73 

his  covenant  with  Noah,  and  he  promises  to  spare  them." — 
Eth.,  Vol  IL,pp.  264,  265. 

Lecky,  a  skeptic,  says:  "That  tenderness  attached  to  ani- 
mals, which  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful /^^/z/r^i"  of  Old  Testa- 
ment writings,  shows  itself,  among  other  ways,  in  the  command 
not  to  muzzle  the  ox  that  treadeth  out  the  corn,  or  to  yoke 
together  the  ox  and  the  ass.  The  Jewish  law  did  not  confine 
its  care  to  oxen.  The  reader  will  remember  the  touching  pro- 
vision, 'Thou  shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  its  7nothet^s  milk'  (Deut. 
xiv.  21);  and  the  law  forbidding  men  to  take  a  parent  bird 
that  was  sitting  on  its  young  or  on  its  eggs  (Deut.  xxii.  6,  7)." 
— Lecky' s  Hist.  Europ.  Mor.,Vol.  II.,  pp.  172,  173. 

Let  any  one  compare  these  Bible  provisions  for  animals  with 
the  cruelties  to  animals  in  gladiatorial  exhibitions  of  civilized 
Greece,  Rome,  Spain,  and  our  own  cruelties,  and  ask  how 
such  laws  can  be  found  in  a  "book  of  such  cruelty"  and  of 
such  a  "cruel  author,"  as  the  Old  Testament  is  claimed  to  be! 


174  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Old  Testament  Laws  concerning  Treatment  of  Enemies, 
Heathen  or  Strangers. 

I.   "  One  law  and  one  manner  shall  be  for  you,  and 

FOR    THE    stranger  THAT   SOJOURNETH  WITH    YOU." Numb. 

XV.  i6.  "This  law  obviously  applies  to  heathen  as  well  as  to 
Hebrews.  L.  Baur,  Stendel  and  Michaelis,*all  skeptics,  ad- 
mit this." — Sermon  on  Mount,  by  Tholuck,  p.  280. 

**For  the  Lord  your  God  is  a  God  of  gods,  a  great  God, 
a  mighty,  and  a  terrible,  which  regardeth  not  persons.  . 
He  doth  execute  the  judgment  of  the  fatherless  and  widow, 
and  loveth  the  stranger,  in  giving  him  food  and  raiment.  Love 
ye,  therefore,  the  stranger." — Deut.  x.  18,  19.  "And  if  a 
stranger  sojourn  with  thee  in  your  land,  ye  shall  not  vex  him. 
But  the  stranger  that  dwelleth  with  you  shall  be  as  one  born 
among  you,  and  thou  shalt  love  him  as  thyself." — Lev.  xix. 
33,  34,  et  seq.  So,  "in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  God,  and 
worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  with  him." — Acts  x.  35. 
*'Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself." — Lev.  xix.  18.  By 
this  is  especially  meant  all  that  are  in  need.  (Luke  x.  27-37.) 
From  this  it  is  clear  that  the  ten  commandments  and  the  whole 
Hebrew  law  governed  Hebrews  in  their  relations  to  other  na- 
tions as  well  as  to  themselves.  All  were  equal  before  the 
law.     Who  will  presume  to  say  that  the  ten  commandments 


*  Some  may  not  regard  the  "literary  school"  of  German  biblical 
criticism  as  skeptical.  But  it  was  evidently  so  tinctured  with  it  as  to 
produce  rationalism.    And  Eichorn  was  trained  at  the  feet  of  Michaelis. 


OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  1 75 

governed  the  Jews  only  in  their  relations  to  each  other?  All 
these  secular  and  partly  moral  privileges  of  the  law  were  the 
boon  of  the  Gentile  stranger.  And,  by  accepting  the  He- 
brew religion,  he  was  welcome  to  all  the  religious  blessings 
and  privileges  of  the  Hebrews. 

2.  Hebrew  relations  to  enemies. 

Of  course,  the  law  did  not  release  any  one  from  his  obli- 
gations to  his  enemies.  The  law  unchangeably  held  all 
equal. 

''If  thou  meet  thine  enemy's  ox  or  his  ass  going  astray, 
thou  shalt  surely  bring  it  back  to  him  again.  If  thou  see  the 
ass  of  him  that  hateth  thee  lying  under  his  burden,  and  wouldest 
forbear  to  help  him,  thou  shalt  surely  help  with  him." — Exod. 
xxiii.  4,  5.  '' From  the  humane  and  heavenly  maxim,  .  .  . 
our  blessed  Lord  has  formed  the  following  precept:  'Love 
your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to  them  that 
hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despitefuUy  use  and  per- 
secute you'  (Matt.  v.  44)." — Adam  Clarke's  Commentary  on 
Exod.  xxiii.  4,  5.  Let  any  one,  who  thinks  the  Old  Testa- 
ment standard  of  love  to  enemies  low,  try  to  follow  out  the 
above  precept. 

' '  Thou  shalt  not  hate  thy  brother  in  thine  heart 

Thou  shalt  not  avenge,  nor  bear  any  grudge  against  the  chil- 
dren of  thy  people,  but  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self."— Lev.  xix.  17,  18.  We  have  seen  that  all  men  are 
meant,  by  the  law,  as  our  neighbors. 

Some  interpret  our  Savior's  words,  ''Ye  have  heard  that  it 
hath  been  said.  An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth : 
but  I  say  unto  you,  That  ye  resist  not  evil" — to  teach  that  the 
Old  Testament  taught  private  revenge.  (Matt.  v.  7,^,  39.) 
They  also  so  interpret,  '  'Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said, 
Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor,  and  hate  thine  enemy.     But  I 


176  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse  you, 
do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  which  de- 
spitefully  use  you,  and  persecute  you." — Matt.  v.  43,  44. 

Bvii,  first,  this  makes  our  Savior  contradict  himself:  ''Think 
not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law,  or  the  prophets:  I 
came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you. 
Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise 
pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled.  Whosoever  therefore 
shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments — /.  e.,  of  Old 
Testament  morals — and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called 
the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven :  but  whosoever  shall  do 
and  teach  them,  the  same  shall  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven." — Matt.  v.  17-19.  The  reader  will  please  turn 
to  the  close  of  the  second  chapter  of  this  book  and  read  the 
rules  of  interpretation  there  quoted  from  Greenleaf,  Black- 
stone  and  Kent.  Such  an  interpretation  makes  Jesus  say  that 
he  would  not  destroy  a  shadow  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and 
then,  in  a  few  words  after  that,  destroy  its  teachings  on  a  great 
moral  point.  If  the  law  was  not  perfect  in  righteousness,  he 
could  not  have  fulfilled  it  all;  if  he  destroyed  any  part  of  it, 
that  part  could  not  have  been  perfectly  holy. 

Second.  It  makes  the  great  Lawgiver  contradict  his  ethics 
in  the  Old  Testament  by  a  new  ethics  of  the  New  Testament. 

TJiird.  There  is  no  such  law  in  the  Old  Testa7nent  as  hatred 
to  enemies  and  private  revenge.  The  correction  of  our  Savior 
is  not  a  correction  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  a  correction 
of  the  traditions  and  perversions  of  the  Old  Testament  by  the 
Pharisees  and  scribes.* 

a.  "The  'eye  for  an  eye,  and  tooth  for  a  tooth'  law  was,'* 
says  Tholuck,  "given  to  the  magistrates  in  the  courts  of  jus- 
tice.    .     .     .     This  command  of  Moses  is  based  on  theyV^j 


*  See  pages  29  and  30  of  the  Apocrypha^  by  Bissell,  for  illustrations 
of  these  perversions,  etc.,  of  Moses'  laws. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED.  1 77 

taUonis  (to  avmrE-JovOog') — to  antipeponthos — (end  of  justice 
or  justice-of-like  punishment)  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of 
the  oldest  code  of  law.  This  law  of  civil  courts  was  not, 
however,  a  rule  to  guide  the  conduct  of  individuals.  They, 
on  the  contrary,  are  forbidden  to  seek  for  compensation  in  so 
far  as  passion  of  revenge  is  their  motive.  (Lev.  xix.  i8;  Prov. 
xxiv.  29;  Lam.  iii.  27,  30.)  *Say  not,  I  will  do  to  him  as 
he  has  done  to  me :  I  will  render  to  the  man  according  to  his 
work.*  'It  is  good  for  a  man  that  he  bear  the  yoke  of  his 
youth ;  that  he  sit  alone,  and  keep  silence,  because  he  hath 
laid  it  upon  him;  ....  that  he  give  his  cheek  to  him 
that  smiteth  him,  he  is  filled  full  with  reproach.'  So  says  the 
Old  Testament.  The  bad  sense  in  which  the  command  had 
been  applied  by  the  scribes,  is  to  be  learned  from  the  contrast 
in  the  following  passage.  It  seems  that  what  is  there  spoken 
of  is  private  intercourse.  The  majority  of  commentators  have 
accordingly  explained  the  false  exposition  of  the  scribes,  as 
consisting  in  this,  that  they  applied  in  private  intercourse  a 
law  which  was  given  only  for  the  administration  of  courts  of 
justice;  thus,  Luther,  Bucer,  Piscator,  Calov,  Tirinus,  Bengel, 
B.  Crusius,  and  others." — Sermon  on  the  Mount, pp.  266,  267. 
Among  the  others  are  Maldonatus,  Este,  a  Lapide,  Grotius, 
Episcopius,  G.  W.  Clarke,  Adam  Clarke,  Cojup.  Commentary, 
Barnes,  Stier,  Ernesti,  Meyer,  De  Wette — in  fact,  I  know  of 
no  commentator  who  otherwise  comments.  Here  are  both 
infidel  and  Christian  commentators  agreed  in  interpreting  our 
Savior's  words  to  be  only  a  correction  of  a  perversion  of  the 
law  which  made  it  apply  to  private  conduct. 

The  words  of  the  law  itself  are  so  plain  (see  Deut.  xix. 
16-21;  Lev.  xxiv.  17-22)  that  it  is  strange  that  any  one  ever 
misapprehended  our  Savior's  words.  What  would  be  thought 
of  an  exposition  which  should  authorize  private  revenge  from 
the  laws  of  our  country?     Yet  such  an  exposition  would  be 


178  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

exactly  alike  that  exposition  of  the  Mosiac  law,  which  makes 
it  authorize  private  revenge. 

b.  The  "hate  thine  enemy"  law.  Says  Tholuck:  *'Now, 
it  is  unquestionable  that  this  is  a  false  application  of  the  law. 
....  And,  although  it  is  further  a  very  common  prejudice 
that  to  love  one's  enemies  is  a  virtue  peculiar  to  the  New 
Testament,  still  it  is  certain  that  the  law  itself  condemned 
the  cherishing  of  a  hostile  temper  in  private  intercourse  (Lev. 

xix.  18;   Exod.  xxiii.  4,  5) Many  sayings  of  the 

gnomic  lyric  and  didactic  poetry  teach  us  this  spirit  of  love 
was  no  'dead  letter,  but  really  penetrated  the  spirit  of  godly 
men.'" — Idem,  p.  279.  Tholuck  well  says  that  ''hate  thine 
enemy"  is  a  "rabbinical  addition."  Tholuck  here  refers  to 
such  Old  Testament  teachings  as,  "Rejoice  not  when  thine 
enemy  falleth,  and  let  not  thine  heart  be  glad  when  he  stum- 
bleth"  (Prov.  xxiv.  17);  "If  thine  enemy  be  hungry,  give 
him  bread  to  eat;  if  he  be  thirsty,  give  him  water  to  drink" 
(Prov.  XXV.  21).  In  vindicating  himself,  Job  said,  "If  I  re- 
joiced in  the  destruction  of  him  that  hateth  me,  or  lifted  my- 
self up  when  evil  found  him.  .  .  .  The  stranger  did  not 
lodge  in  the  street;  but  I  opened  my  doors  to  the  traveler." 
— Job  xxxi.  29,  32.  When  the  king  asked  Elijah  if  he  should 
smite  the  Assyrians,  who  were  seeking  the  destruction  of 
Israel,  the  prophet  replied:  "Thou  shalt  not  smite  them.  .  .  . 
Set  bread  and  water  before  them,  that  they  may  eat  and  drink, 
and  go  to  their  master.  And  he  prepared  great  provision  for 
them:  and  when  they  had  eaten  and  drunk,  he  sent  them 
away." — 2  Kings  vi.  21-23. 

Tholuck  says:  "All  the  more  remarkable  are  the  instances 
of  liberality  towards  the  poor  among  the  heathen  in  foreign 
lands,  which  occurred  frequently  in  the  latter  days  of  Judaism. " 
— Sermon  on  the  Mount,  p.  281.  Mimonides  and  Prideaux 
especially  mention  this  liberality.     "According  to  the  law  of 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 79 

Moses,  a  corner  of  the  field  was  left  for  the  stranger  and  the 
poor  of  Israel;  in  this,  the  latter  Jews  permitted  also  the 
heathen  to  share.  We  also  read  that  alms  were  collected  in 
a  special  box.  *  Let  the  poor  who  are  not  Israelites  be  fed 
and  clothed  equally  with  Israel,  for  the  sake  of  the  ways  of 
salvation.'  " — Sermon  on  the  Mounts  p.  281.  *'Thou  shalt  not 
abhor  an  Edomite;  for  he  is  thy  brother:  thou  shalt  not  abhor 
an  Egyptian..' — Deut.  xxiii.  7. 

G.  W.  Clarke  says:  "Hate  thine  enemy  was  never  com- 
manded, but  was  added  by  the  Jewish  teachers." — Commentary 
on  Matt.  V.  44. 

Stier  says :  "There  can  be  no  more  mischievous  perversion 
of  Scripture  or  slander  on  the  Old  Testament  than  to  make 
it  teach,  or  to  make  our  Savior's  words  teach,  that  it  teaches 
hatred  to  enemies." — Words  of  Jesus,  Vol.  /.,  /.  196.  The 
Comparative  Commentary,  BengeV s  Commentary,  Adam  darkens 
Commentary,  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  all  evangelical  commen- 
tators agree  in  that  the  Old  Testament  enjoins  love  to  our 
enemies,  and  that  our  Savior's  words  correct  only  the  false 
exposition  and  additions  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees.  Inas- 
much as  the  Old  Testament  so  unequivocally  commands,  and 
in  other  ways  teaches,  love  to  enemies,  it  is  equally  strange 
that  such  an  injustice  has  been  done  to  it  as  to  make  it  teach* 
the  contrary. 

The  ten  commandments  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  correct 
such  interpretations.  "We  have  seen  that  the  command  to 
love  one's  enemies  is  not  given  as  an  antithesis  to  the  law  of 
Moses,  but  that  it  was  commanded  to  the  Jewish  people,  and 

also  practiced  by  them Generally  speaking,  the 

standpoint  of  the  ancient  world  is  less  elevated  than  that  of 
the  Old  Testament  law;  (ii<pe/^Eiv  fievrov;'  (piXovg,  (iXairreLV  ge 
TovqtxOQovg — ophelein  men  tons  philous,  hleptein  de  tons  ekthroiis 
(truly  help  one's  friends,  but  hinder  one's  enemies) — was  the 


l8o  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

maxim  even  of  the  wise  men  of  the  people.  This  egotism  is 
very  plainly  put  in  some  verses  of  Hesiod,  which  Plutarch 
was  incUned  to  consider  authentic,  on  account  of  their  illib- 
erality.  In  a  passage  in  Plutarch  where  there  is  a  description 
of  the  moral  transformation  {de  sera  num  Vind. ,  c.  22)  of  an  im- 
moral man,  it  is  said,  in  his  praise,  that  since  him  there  has  been 
no  one  among  the  Cilicians  who  was  more  useful  to  his  friends 
or  more  dangerous  to  his  enemies." — Tholuck s  Sermon  07i  the 
Mount y  pp.  283,  284.  Socrates  taught  that  to  do  good  to  one's 
friends,  and  evil  to  one's  enemies,  is  a  moral  requirement 
{Xen.  Mem.,  2,  6,  35);  though,  indeed,  to  suffer  wrong  is 
better  than  to  do  it.  The  doing  evil  to  one's  enemies  being, 
in  fact,  not  a  wrong,  but  a  legitimate  retaliation.  (Plato's 
Rep.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  335  ;  Crito,  p.  49.)  See  Wuttke's  Eth.,  Vol. 
I.,  p.  71. 

Confucius  says:  "Recompense  injury*  with  justice,  and 
recompense  kindness  with  kindness." — Confucius,  p.  217 — 
translated  by  Legge. 

"The  precept  of  love  to  neighbor  is  presented  even  in  the 
Old  Testament  as  a  chief  duty  (Lev.  xix.  18),  and  is  expressly 
intended  to  non-Israelites  (Lev.  xix.  34;  Deut.  x.  19;  Micah 
vi.  8;  Zech.  vii.  9);  what  a  contrast  this  forms  to  the  boasted 
'  humantarianism'  of  the  Greeks,  to  whom  every  non-Greek 
was  a  rightless  barbarian." — Wuttke's  Eth.,  Vol.  II..,  p.  255. 

*  Legge  says,  as  the  result  of  this  teaching  of  Confucius:  "Sir  John 
Davis  has  rightly  called  attention  to  this  as  one  of  the  objectionable 
principles  of  Confucius.  The  bad  effects  of  it  are  evident  even  in  the 
present  day.  Revenge  is  sweet  to  the  Chinese.  .  .  .  They  do  not 
like  to  resign,  even  to  government,  the  inquisition  for  blood." — Con- 
fucius,p,  114. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  l8l 


CHAPTER  XI. 

The  Old  Testament  and  Servants. 

I.  Heathen  or  ancient  slavery  was  never  instituted 
OR  encouraged  by  the  Lord;  and,  in  this  sense,  is  not  an 
Old  Testament  institution.*  This  is  plain  from  several 
considerations : 

a.  In  the  garden  of  Eden  there  were  no  slaves  and  no  pro- 
vision for  slavery.  The  only  provision  there  was  a  provision 
of  equality  for  all. 

b.  Before  the  flood — including  about  1,656  years — there  is 
no  account  of  slavery. 

c.  In  beginning  the  world  anew,  when  they  left  the  ark, 
there  was  no  provision  for  slavery.  There  were  only  Noah 
and  his  family  who  left  the  ark  and  began  the  world  anew ; 
hence,  as  in  Eden,  no  one  to  be  a  slave. 

d.  Before  the  time  of  Abraham  there  was  no  slavery.  Gen. 
ix.  25  has  been  thought  to  teach  the  divine  origin  of  slavery. 
But,  "the  language  is  prophetic;  anticipating,  by  a  divinely 
given  foresight,  the  future  character  and  destiny  of  this  line 
of  Ham's  posterity.  These  did  not  follow  as  consequences 
of  the  curse  here  pronounced,  but  were  prophetically  antici- 
pated by  it." — Genesis,  with   notes  and  translation,  by  T.  J. 

*  The  subject  of  Jewish  and  heathen  slavery  is  not  intended  by  the 
author  of  this  work  to  refer  to  slavery  in  the  United  States  of  America. 
Whatever  were  the  merits  of  slavery  in  the  United  States,  it  was  set- 
tled before  the  author  was  of  age  and  when  he  knew  nothing  of  bib- 
lical investigation. 


162  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

Conant,  D.D.,  p.  40.  Even  if  it  were  otherwise,  it  could 
mean  no  more  than  that  such  slavery,  like  disease — all  the 
ills  of  life,  is  one  of  the  curses  of  sin  to  the  human  race —  a 
curse  to  both  slave  and  master. 

In  Gen.  xix.  15,  16,  30,  12,  we  learn  that  though  Lot 
was  a  judge  in  Sodom,  he  had  no  slaves  to  save;  for  none  are 
mentioned,  referred  or  alluded  to.  At  a  late  day  of  his  life, 
Abraham  had  so  lew  servants  that  they  are  not  mentioned 
among  his  possessions.  (Gen.  xiii.  2.)  From  Gen.  xii.  5  it 
appears  that  Abraham  got  his  first  servants  in  Haran,  when 
he  was  about  seventy-five  years  old. 

e.  Jewish  slavery  was  an  evil  that  the  chosen  people,  with 
other  evils,  learned  from  other  nations.  Abraham  learned 
the  evil  in  Haran. 

Thus,  \^^  first  2, oS^  years  of  the  Old  Testament  finds  neither 
slavery  nor  provision  for  slavery.  And,  when  it  is  found  among 
the  chosen,  it  is  found  an  evil  that  they  contracted  from  the 
heathen.  It  is,  therefore,  clear  that  when  slavery  is  found 
among  the  Hebrews,  it  is  found  not  of  divine  but  of  heathen 
origin.  He  who,  in  the  absence  of  any  account  of  the  divine 
enactment  of  slavery,  can  believe  that  the  last  2,000  years  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  a  period  of  divinely  originated,  or  en- 
couraged slavery,  in  view  of  the  above  considerations,  must  be- 
lieve so,  in  disregard  of  the  laws  of  interpretation  quoted  in 
the  second  chapter  of  this  book.  This  will  further  appear  in 
the  regulations  of  slavery. 

2.  Slavery  as  regulated. — There  were  some  things,  our 
Savior  informs  us,  which  were  suffered — not  originated  or  au- 
thorized— by  the  Old  Testament  because  of  the  "hardness"  of 
the  people's  "hearts."  (Matt.  xix.  8.)  While  perm^itted,  they 
were  so  regulated  as  to  mitigate  much  of  their  evils,  educate 
the  people  out  of,  and,  finally,  do  away  with  them.  In  this 
way  all  civilizations  have  grown  up,  and  all  wise  legislators 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 83 

act.  No  law  can  be  enforced  which  is  too  far  in  advance  of 
the  education  of  the  people.  To  attempt  to  enforce  a  law,  so 
far  in  advance  of  the  people  that  they  will  rebel  .against  it, 
can  only  defeat  its  purpose.  ''The  institution  of  slavery  was 
recognized,  though  not  established  by  the  Mosaic  law,  with  a 
view  to  mitigate  its  hardships  and  to  secure  to  every  man  his 
ordinary  rights.  Repugnant  as  the  notion  of  slavery  is  to 
our  minds,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  it  can  be  dispensed  with 
in  certain  phases  of  society,  without,  at  all  events,  entailing 
severer  evils  than  those  which  it  produces." — Smithes  Bible 
DicL.Vol  IV.,  p.  3057. 

3.  Slavery  of  Jews. 

First.  Slavery  of  Jews  was  payment  of  debt  and  a  punish- 
ment for  theft.  (Lev.  XXV.  25,  39;  Exod.  xxii.  3.)  The  one 
in  debt  and  unable  to  pay  was  permitted  to  sell  himself  (not 
be  sold  as  the  Coimnon  Version'^') ;  in  other  words,  enter  into 
voluntary  service  to  pay  his  debt.  ''Thou  shalt  not  compel 
him  to  serve  as  a  bond-servant :  but  as  a  hired  servant  and  as 
a  sojourner,  he  shall  be  with  thee,  and  shall  serve  thee  unto 
the  year  of  jubilee." — Lev.  xxv.  39.  This  was  a  way  to  pay 
just  debts,  and,  at  the  same  time,  a  light  punishment  to  make 
people  careful  how  they  went  into  debt.  While  a  servant, 
his  wife  and  children  were  with  him,  were  cared  for;  and 
when  he  went  out  of  servitude,  he  took  them  with  him.f 
(Lev.  xxv.  41.)  Considering  the  laws  which  provided  help 
for  the  poor,  the  one  who  involved  himself  into  debt  was 
justly  obligated  to  sell  himself  as  a  kind  of  punishment  for 
going  into  debt.  The  instances  of  seizing  children  for  debt 
were  outrages  of  the  law.  (2  Kings  iv.  i ;  Neh.  v.  5.)  They 
show  the  hardness  of  the  people's  hearts. 

**^^^^^ — reflexive  niphal,  of  kal     "sell  himself."     This  voluntary 

hired  service,  to  pay  off  the  debt,  is  very  different  from  being  "sold." 
t  See  exception  explained  in  Chapter  XII.,  under  point  "9,"  "(^." 


184  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

The  thief  was  sold  to  work  out  restitution  to  the  one  from 
whom  he  had  stolen  the  property,  and,  at  the  same  time  and 
in  the  same  way,  to  work  out  the  penalty  of  the  law.  (Exod. 
xxii.  I,  3.)  This  was  something  like  convict  labor  among  us, 
except  that  the  one  who  had  suffered  the  loss  received  the 
restitution  instead  of  the  State.  It  is  a  better  law  than  our 
own. 

Second.  A  daughter  was,  in  extreme  circumstances,  sold, 
with  view  to  her  marriage,  to  the  one  buying  her,  or  to  his 
son.  (Exod.  xxi.  7,  8.)  If  the  man  dealt  '"deceitfully-^  with 
her" — which  law  could  then  no  more  prevent  than  now — 
"then  shall  he  let  her  be  redeemed: to  sell  her  to  a  strange 
nation  he  shall  have  no  power."  *'If  he  hath  betrothed 
her  to  his  son,  he  shall  deal  with  her  after  the  manner  of 
daughters" — give  her  the  same  dowry  that  he  would  give  his 
own  daughters.  If  his  son  took  another  wife,  he  had  to  give 
the  same  attention  to  her  as  before,  or  buy  her  release,  or 
lose  all  the  money  he  had  given  for  her,  as  well  as  the  dowry 
she  took  with  her.  (Exod.  xxi.  7-1 1.)  The  other  phase  of 
the  ethical  question  of  this  marriage  is  treated  on  the  Hebrew 
7narriages  or  family. 

The  Hebrew  servants  were  released  by  redemption,  by  the 
year  of  jubilee,  or  by  the  seventh  year,  if  it  came  before  the 
jubilee.  (Lev.  xxv.  40,  41;  Exod.  xxi.  2-1 1.)  While  serv- 
ants, the  law  was:  ''Thou  shalt  not  rule  over  him  with  rigor; 
but  shalt  fear  thy  God." — Lev.  xxv.  43. f     Hebrew  slavery 

*^'S^—^cig<^d — means  to  act  "covertly,   deceitfully;"   is  soused  in 

-   T 

Job  vi.  15.     He  deceived  her  by  promising  to  make  her  his  real— only 
—  wife. 

t  These  regulations  or  restrictions  upon  this  evil,  which,  because  of 
the  rude  moral  ideas  then  prevalent,  could  not  then  be  wholly  re- 
moved, show  that  the  slavery,  then  prevailing,  was  very  barbarous — 
to  require  such  restrictions  ;  and  so  the  history  of  slavery  among  heathen 
nations  proves  it  to  have  been. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  .185 

was  hardly  more  than  our  servants  or  "hired  help."    In  fact, 
it  was  not  slavery. 

4.  Slavery  of  foreigners.  —  "The  majority  of  slaves  who 
were  not  Hebrews  were  war  captives,  either  of  the  Canaanites 
who  had  survived  the  general  extermination  of  the  race  under 
Joshua,  or  such  as  were  conquered  from  the  surrounding  na- 
tions. (Numb.  xxxi.  26-46;  Lev.  xxv.  44,  45,)  Besides 
these,  some  were  obtained  by  purchase  from  foreign  slave- 
dealers  (Lev.  xxv.  44,  45) ;  and  others  may  have  been  resident 
foreigners,  who  were  reduced  to  this  state  either  by  poverty 
or  crime." — Smith's  Bible  Did,,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  3060. 

First.  By  making  them  slaves,  their  lives  were  saved  in 
war.  With  Jews  and  others,  only  the  fact  that  their  captives 
could  be  made  slaves  saved  them  from  death  at  the  hands  of 
their  bloody  captors. — Inirod.  Study  of  Roman  Law,  by  Had- 
ley,  p.  no. 

Second.  The  murder  of  a  slave  was  death  to  the  murderer 
— the  same  as  murdering  a  free  man.  (Lev.  xxiv.  17,  22; 
Exod.  xxi.  20,  with  Gen.  ix.  6.) 

It  has  been  objected  that  the  master  not  being  punished  in 
case  the  servant  lived  "a  day  or  two"  after  he  was  smitten 
(verse  21),  is  wrong.  But,  when  we  bear  in  mind  that  the  mas- 
ter did  not  intend  to  kill  the  slave;  that  he  might,  in  that  time, 
have  died  from  another  cause;  and  that  the  master  lost  what 
he  regarded  a  valuable  piece  of  property,  the  force  of  the  objec- 
tion vanishes.  Remember  that  the  law  gives  the  master  "the 
benefit  of  the  doubt"  as  to  his  dying  from  being  smitten;  and 
that  the  law  demanded  the  death  of  the  master  for  killing  his 
slave  as  well  as  for  killing  any  one.  If  the  master  was  not 
executed  after  the  slave  lived  "a  day  or  two"  because — as 
the  infidel  claims — he  was  a  slave,  why  was  he  executed  in 
case  of  his  immediate  death? 


t86  old  testament  ethics  vindicated. 

Third.  The  law  freed  any  servant  whose  master  had  knocked 
out  his  tooth  or  eye.      (Exod.  xxi.  26,  27.) 

Fourth.  The  slave  was  treated  much  better  than  many  hired 
servants  or  "hands"  of  our  own  time;  for  he  had  one  day  in 
seven  as  his  own.  (Exod.  xx.  10.)  Also,  he  had  a  good 
time  and  rest  in  the  Hebrew  festivals.  (Exod.  xii.  44;  Deut. 
xii.  18;  xvi.  II,  14. 

Fifth.  Whoever  let  his  ox  kill  another's  servant  had  to  pay 
him  the  price  of  the  servant;  and,  to  impress  all  with  the 
sacredness  of  human  life,  have  the  ox  stoned  to  death.  (Exod. 
xxi.  32.)  To  as  barbarous  a  people  as  the  Jews  then  were, 
this  penalty  opened  their  eyes  to  the  sacredness  of  a  slave's 
life.  If  any  farther  penalty  was  needed,  it  was  not  practical, 
for  the  same  cause  that  the  immediate  abolition  of  slaves  was 
not  practical. 

Sixth.  Hebrew  slaves  were  very  highly  honored  and  well 
treated  in  all  things.  They  were  often  made  rulers  of  the 
house,  tutors  of  their  master's  sons — showing  that  they  had 
great  educational  privileges;  and,  also,  tenants  on  large  es- 
tates. (Gen.  XV.  2;  xxi  v.  2;  Prov.  xvii.  2;  xxix.  19,  21.) 
(The  boring  the  ear,  mentioned  in  Exod.  xxi.  2-6,  has  refer- 
ence to  only  a  Hebrew  servant.  It  was  done  because  the 
wife  and  the  family  were  Canaanites,  and,  as  such,  could  not 
''go  out"  as  the  Hebrews.  This  will  be  noticed  under  the 
family  or  the  marriage.)  So  well  were  Hebrew  slaves  treated, 
that  there  is  but  one  instance  of  a  time  of  runaway  slaves 
mentioned  in  all  Hebrew  history;  that — in  i  Sam.  xxv.  10 — 
is  the  authority  of  only  wicked  Nabal. 

5.  Adaptation  of  the  laws  of  the  Old  Testament  for 
abolishing  slavery. 

a.  The  fact  of  there  being  neither  slaves  nor  provision  for 
slavery  in  the  first  2,000  years  of  Jewish  history. 

b.  In  slavery  having  no  place  in  Eden. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 87 

c.  In  its  having  no  place  as  they  went  out  of  the  ark. 

d.  In  its  origin  being  heathen. 

e.  In  that  the  laws  were  the  same  which  governed  and  reg- 
ulated all,  governed  and  regulated  the  master  in  his  treatment 
of  his  slaves. 

/.  In  the  Jews  being  continually  reminded  that  they  had 
been  slaves  of  the  Egyptians.     (Lev.  xxv.  52-55.) 

g.  Man-stealing — for  slavery — was  death  to  the  man-stealer. 
(Deut.  xxiv.  7.)  No  other  theft  was  death  to  the  thief.  Thus, 
slavery  received  a  fatal  stab. 

h.  According  to  the  genesis  of  men,  "all  were  born — cre- 
ated— free  and  equal."  Thlis  God  created  men.  Whoever 
held  slaves  clearly  violated  this  divine  order. 

/.  According  to  Genesis,  God  made  of  one  blood  all  nations 
to  dwell  on  the  face  of  the  earth — universal  brotherhood.  No 
credit  to  man  to  enslave  his  brother. 

J.  According  to  Genesis,  all  were  created  in  the  image  of 
God.     No  credit  to  man  to  enslave  the  image  of  his  Creator. 

k.  All  men  were  regarded  our  neighbors,  calling  for  help 
in  time  of  need.  Not  very  much  encouragement  to  hold  in 
slavery  those  whom  God  calls  on  us  to  help  as  neighbors. 

/.  Every  seven  years,  or  the  year  of  jubilee,  freed  all  He- 
brew servants.  (Exod.  xxi.  2;  Lev.  xxv.  40,  41.)  Gentile 
slaves  were  not  freed,  because  the  "hardness  of  the  hearts" 
of  the  Jews  would  not  admit  of  the  enforcement  of  a  law 
freeing  them,  without  entailing  greater  evils.  But  the  freeing 
of  Jewish  slaves  with  "^,"  "/^,"  'V,"  "^,"  "^,"  "/,"  "^," 
"/^,"  "/,"  "/,"  ">^,"  before  them,  prepared  their  minds  for 
the  final  abolition  of  all  slaves.  Other  things  are  in  the  Old 
Testament  which  helped  to  abolish  slavery;  but  these  eleven, 
which  I  have  pointed  out,  are  sufficient  to  show  the  Old  Test- 
ament an  anti-slavery  book.  Any  reasonable  man  can  read- 
ily see  that  no  property  could  be  secure  with  such  restrictions 


1 88^  OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

and  reflections  upon  holding  it.  These  restrictions  and  re- 
flections upon  Jewish  slavery,  instead  of  its  absolute  prohi- 
bition, stand  as  evidence  of  the  pre-eminent  wisdom  and 
benevolence  of  the  Author  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  perfect  adaptation  of  these  restrictions  to  abolish  slav- 
ery is  proved  by  their  result.  In  no  period  of  their  history 
did  they  make  slavery  a  great  figure  in  their  affairs.  In  their 
early  history,  they  probably  had  no  more  than  from  30,000 
to  50,000  slaves.  After  the  Babylonish  captivity,  we  read  of 
only  7,337  slaves — or  about  one  to  every  six  of  the  Jews. 
(Ezra  ii.  65.)  So  few  were  the  slaves  of  any  kind  among 
the  Jews;  and  such  is  the  anti-slavery  nature  of  the  Old  Test- 
ament, that  slavery  with  the  Jews  can  hardly  be  pronounced 
a  Jewish  institution.* 

Turning  to  slavery  among  the  heathen:  "A  small  aristoc- 
racy governed  at  Attica,  while  the  soil  was  cultivated  by  a 
working  class  of  400,000  slaves;  and  a  similar  disproportion  ex- 
isted throughout  Greece.  The  island  of  Aegina  is  stated  to  have 
held  at  one  time  470,000  slaves,  a  large  proportion  of  whom 
were  agricultural  serfs.  The  slave  population  of  Corinth,  in 
her  greatest  prosperity,  was  rated  at  460,000  slaves.  Accord- 
ing to  a  learned  article  on  'the  democracy  of  Athens,'  in  the 
New  York  Review  for  July,  1840,  the  whole  number  of  slaves 
in  Attica  was  about  365,000  to  95,000  citizens  and  45,000  res- 
ident foreigners.  Even  Aristotle  considered  the  relation  of 
master  and  slave  just  as  indispensable,  in  a  well-ordered  state, 


*The  Hebrew  word  "^^t^ — ebed — "servant,"  is  never  rendered  slave 

in  our  version.  (Jar.  ii.  14  is  an  addition  of  the  word  ^^slave,^^  as  not 
in  the  Hebrew,)  It  is  rendered  "servant"  in  about  700  times,  and  is 
applied  to  kings,  captains,  God's  people,  etc.,  as  well  as  to  Hebrew 
servants.  It  is  even  applied  to  Christ.  (Isa.  xlix.  7;  1.  10;  liii.  ii.) 
See,  also,  Ges.  Lex.  Heb.  This  use  of  the  word  may  indicate  that 
♦♦servant"  as  among  the  Hebrews  was  a  very  mild  form  of  subordina- 
tion, and  be,  in  this  connection,  appreciated. 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 89 

as  husband  and  wife.  (Art's f.  Fol.,  h.  i,  ch.  i.)  .  .  .  Hume, 
in  his  essay  on  the  Fopulousness  of  Ancient  Nations,  says  that 
some  great  men  among  the  Romans  possessed  to  the  number 
of  10,000  slaves.  In  the  Augustan  age,  one-half  the  popu- 
lation of  the  Roman  world  (and  the  whole  population  was  es- 
timated at  120  milHons  of  souls)  were  slaves." — Kenfs.  Com. 
on  Am.  Law,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  266,  267;  also,  Wuttke's  Eth.,  Vol. 
I.,p.  60. 

Slavery  with  the  Jews,  mild  as  it  was,  became  an  odious 
institution.  As  to  methods  which  the  Jews  adopted  to  free 
slaves,  through  the  influence  of  the  Old  Testament,  "the  Rab- 
binists  specify  the  following  four  methods:  (i)  Redemption 
by  money  payment;  (2)  a  bill  or  ticket  of  freedom;  (3)  test- 
amentary <iisposition ;  or  (4)  any  act  that  implied  manumis- 
sion, such  as  making  a  slave  one's  heir"  {Miehiner,  pp.  65, 
dd). — Smith's  Bible  Vict.,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  3060.  In  our  Savior's 
time,  though  slavery  flourished  with  the  Gentiles,  it  was  a 
rare  thing  to  find  a  Jew  holding  slaves.  The  Old  Testament 
elevated  a  barbarous  nation,  protected  the  captive  from  cru- 
elty, and  finally  set  him  free. 

5.  Jewish  and  heathen  treatment  of  slaves  compared. 
— Kent  says:  "  Personal  slavery  prevailed  with  uncommon 
rigor  in  the  free  states  of  antiquity;  and  it  can  not  but  dim- 
inish very  considerably  our  sympathy  with  their  spirit  and  our 
reverence  for  their  institutions.  A  vast  majority  of  the  peo- 
ple of  ancient  Greece  were  in  a  state  of  absolute  slavery. 
The  disproportion  between  freemen  and  slaves  was  nearly  in 
the  ratio  of  30,000  to  400,000.  At  Athens  they  were  treated 
with  more  humanity  than  in  Thessaly,  Crete,  Argos  or  Sparta; 
for  at  Athens  the  philosophers  taught  and  recommended  hu- 
manity to  slaves  as  a  sure  test  of  virtue.  They  were  entitled 
to  sue  their  master  for  excessive  ill-usage,  and  compel  him  to 
sell  them  (the  Bible,  in  such  case,  freed  them,  as  we  have 


igo  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

seen);  and  they  had  also  the  privilege  of  purchasing  their 
freedom.  In  the  Roman  republic,  the  practice  of  predial 
and  domestic  slavery  was  equally  countenanced  and  still  more 
abused.  There  were  instances  of  private  persons  owning 
singly  no  less  than  four  thousand  slaves;  and  by  the  Roman 
law,  slaves  were  considered  in  the  light  of  goods  and  chat- 
tels, and  could  be  sold  or  pawned.  They  could  be  tortured, 
and  even  put  to  death,  at  the  discretion  of  their  masters. 
By  a  succession  of  edicts,  which  humanity,  reason  and  policy 
dictated,  the  jurisdiction  of  life  and  death  over  slaves  was 
taken  from  their  masters  and  referred  to  the  magistrate ;  and 
the  dungeons  of  cruelty  were  abolished." — Kenfs  Com.  on 
A7n.  Law,  Vol.  IT.,  pp.  266,  267.  This  law,  ameliorating  the 
condition  of  slaves,  was  made  a/fer  Christianity  threw  its  light 
over  the  world — in  the  first  and  second  centuries.  For  this 
change  no  glory  is,  therefore,  due  to  heathenism.  This  was 
the  horrible  condition  of  slaves  in  the  brightest  ages  of  "civ- 
ilized" Greece  and  Rome — excepting  Athens.  In  that  con- 
dition of  things,  kiUing  of  a  slave  was  no  more  than  killing  a 
quadruped.  ''When  a  master  was  murdered  by  one  of  his 
domestic  slaves,  all  the  slaves  of  his  household  at  the  time 
were  to  be  put  to  death;  and  Tacitus  gives  a  horrible  instance, 
in  the  time  of  Nero,  ....  of  four  hundred  slaves  being 
put  to  death  with  the  approbation  of  the  senate,  for  the  mur- 
der of  a  master  by  one  slave." — Kenfs  C0771.  on  Am.  Law, 
p.  267.  Blackstone  gives  the  theory  of  heathen  slave  law: 
''The  conqueror,  says  the  civilian,  has  a  right  to  the  life  of 
his  captive ;  and  having  spared  that,  he  has  a  right  to  deal 
with  him  as  he  pleases." — Chit  Blackstone,  Vol.  /.,  /.  332. 
See  also  Introd.  Roman  Law,  by  Hadley,  p.  113;  Lecky's  Hist. 
Europ.  Mor.,  Vol.  IL.,  p.  65;  Intel.  Develop.  Europe,  p.  184; 
Leckfs  Hist.  Europ.  Rationalism,  Vol.  II.,  p.  226;  Wilsons 
Outlines  of  Hist.,  p.  753.     See  Exodus,  chapters  i.  and  ii.. 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  191 

especially  the  account  of  the  wholesale  slaughter  of  infants, 
as  proof  of  how  the  most  ''civilized"  nation  of  that  age  re- 
garded the  person  and  lives  of  slaves,  i  Sam.  xxx.  13  may- 
throw  farther  light  upon  how  lightly  heathen  people  regard 
the  lives  of  slaves.  Space  does  not  permit  me  to  fully  de- 
scribe the  horrors  of  slavery  among  heathen  nations.  They 
sought  neither  its  abolition  nor  the  removal  of  its  cruelty. 
As  Lecky  says :  '  The  legitimacy  of  slavery  was  fuUy  recog- 
nized with  them." — Hist.  Eur  op.  Mor.,  Vol.  //.,/.  65.  It 
is  therefore  evident  that  the  Old  Testament  in  its  treatment 
of  slavery,  alone,  proves  itself  a  humane — a  divine  book. 


92  OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Women,  Marriage,  the  Family,  Chastity,  according  to 
THE  Old  Testament. 

1.  Both  the  man  and  the  woman,  convicted  of  adultery,  were 
put  to  death.     (Deut.  xxii.  22-24;   Lev.  xx.  10.) 

2.  The  parties  convicted  of  fornication  were  compelled  to  marry 
each  other.  The  man  had  to  pay — what  was  then — an  enor- 
mous sum,  fifty  shekels  of  silver,  to  the  father  of  the  maiden, 
and  could  never  be  divorced  from  her.  (Deut.  xxii.  28,  29; 
Exod.  xxii.  16.) 

3.  The  o?ie  who  committed  rape  was  put  to  death,  upon  convic- 
tion.    (Deut.  xxii.  25.) 

The  adoption  and  enforcement  of  the  above  three  laws  is  a 
sore  need  of  our  time  and  country.  To  the  insulted  and 
ruined  our  laws  are  mere  mockery. 

4.  Unnatural  crimes  were  death.  Exod.  xxii.  19;  Lev.  xviii. 
23,  24;  XX.  13,  15,  16;  xviii.  22.  (See  Romans  i.  21-32; 
ii.  24,  27.)  "All  these  crimes  were  common  among  the  Egyp- 
tians, Canaanites,  Greeks  and  Romans,  etc." — Adatn  Clarke's 
Commentary  on  Lev.  xx.  19. 

5.  All  kinds  of  incest  forbidden.  Read  Lev.  xviii.  6-17; 
XX.  II,  12,  17,  19-22. 

7.  Monogamy  was  the  law  of  the  Old  Testament. 
This  is  evident  from  many  considerations. 

a.  But  one  woman  is  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament  for 
but  one  man.  (Gen.  ii.  22-24.)  ^y  ^\\'s>,  Jesus  condemns 
all  other  sexual  relations :   ' '  Have  ye  not  rcad^  that  he  which 


OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 93 

made  them  at  the  beginning,  made  them  male  and  female,  and 
said,  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  father  and  mother,  and 
shall  cleave  to  his  wife  [not  wives;  -nQo^EKoXXriOriotTal—pros- 
kollao—TQndtYQd  "cleave,"  the  word  for  ''glued  to,"  signify- 
ing the  unchangeable  and  indissoluble  bond] :  and  they  twain 
shall  be  ojie  flesh?" — Matt.  xix.  4,  5. 

b.  The  origin  of  polygamy  is  its  condemnation.  First.  It 
originated  with  the  wicked  posterity  of  a  murderer— Cain. 
Second.  It  originated  in  the  period  when  darkness,  crime  and 
''great  violence"  had  begun  to  cover  the  earth.  Gen.  iv.  23. 
This  was  about  five  hundred  years  after  the  creation. 

c.  Kings  being  the  example  for  their  people,  were  forbidden 
to  multiply  wives.     Deut.  xvii.  17. 

d.  Widow  of  one  man  is  often  mentioned  in  the  Old  Test- 
ament, but  never  does  it  so  mention  more  than  one  widow. 
Deut.  X.  18;  xiv.  29;  xxvii.  19;  Ps.  cxlvi.  9;  Jer.  vii.  6; 
Ezek.  xxii.  7.  If  the  Old  Testament  had  spoken  of  widows 
of  one  man,  it  would  not  have  condemned  polygamy  by  ig- 
noring the  concubines  he  left. 

e.  The  righteous  persons  or  the  saved  in  the  ark  were  mo- 
nogamists.    Gen.  vii.  13.     All  polygamists  were  drowned. 

/.  Job,  the  eminently  righteous  man,  had  but  one  wife. 

g.  At  the  close  of  the  flood  and  at  the  beginning  anew  of 
the  world,  it  was  begun  on  a  system  of  monogamy.  Gen. 
vii.  13. 

h.  Polygamy  is  so  recorded  as  to  warn  all  against  it,  as  evil 
and  only  evil.  Lamach,  a  man  of  blood,  is  the  first  recorded 
polygamist.  Gen.  iv.  23.  The  happy  life  of  Abraham's 
wedded  love  is  blasted  by  his  taking  a  second  wnfe;  while  it 
brings  bitterness  to  the  second  wife.  (Gen.  xvi.  1-9.)  In 
verse  8,  God  refuses  to  recognize  Hagar  as  a  wife.  Jacob 
was  a  polygamist;  and  some  of  his  sons  were  dissolute,  cruel, 
jealous— the  fruits  of  polygamy.     David  was  a  polygamist, 


194  OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

and  had  as  bitter,  sinful,  disgraceful  and  calamitous  a  family 
history  as  is  on  record.  But  all  went  well  before  he  violated 
law.  Solomon  was  a  polygamist;  hence,  the  calamity  and 
downfall  of  his  kingdom  after  his  death.  His  sun  went  down 
behind  a  cloud. 

/.  Monogamy  is  commended  as  being  a  life  of  deepest  joy. 
''Rejoice  with  the  wife  (not  wives)  of  thy  youth." — Prov. 
V.  1 8.  ''Whoso  findeth  a  wife  findeth  a  good  thing"*  (not 
wives). — Prov.  xviii.  22.  "A  prudent  wife  (not  wives)  is 
from  the  Lord." — Prov.  xix.  14. 

j.  The  slur  upon  the  eunuch  state  was  a  condemnation  of 
polygamy.  (Deut.  xxiii.  i.)  Eunuchs  have  always  been  a 
necessity  to  harems  in  the  East. 

k.  Prohibition  of  marrying  one  sister  while  the  other  was 
living.  (Lev.  xviii.  18.)  The  margin  renders  it  "one  wife 
to  another."  Adam  Clarke  says:  "Some  think  the  text  may 
be  so  understood  as  to  forbid  polygamy." — Commentary^  in 
loco.  Anyhow,  the  forbidding  of  taking  one  sister  together 
with  another  as  wife,  and  the  reason  given — equally  applicable 
to  any  case — is  about  equivalent  to  an  absolute  prohibition  of 
polygamy.  That  the  Hebrew  may  be  rendered  "wife  to  an- 
other" is  certainly  true.  In  Exod.  xxvi.  3,  and  in  other  places, 
the  same  Hebrew  -  nnriK'/K — is  rendered  "one  to  another." 
Not  insisting  on  the  marginal  rendering,  which  is  likely  true, 
these  eleven  considerations,  taken  together,  condemn  polyg- 
amy, and  tend  to  its  abolishment.  Of  the  desire  of  marriage 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  "the  propagation  of  children,"  and 
the  anti-polygamic  nature  of  the  Old  Testament,  Harless  re- 
marks:  "This  last  error  it  was  which  caused,  for  example, 


*  "Thing"  is  a  serious  fault  in  the  translation.  ^IlD — ^°^ — means 
goori  as  to  purpose,  good  in  a  moral  sense,  joyous,  glad,  happy,  pros- 
perous. It  should  be  rendered,  "finds  (or  gets,  as  the  Hebrew  means 
l)olh)  a  wife  finds  good" — /.  ^.,  blessing  from  God. 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  1 95 

the  jDOiygamies  of  the  patriarchs  of  the  people  of  Israel — a 
relation  which  nowhere  in  the  Old  Testament  is  mentioned 
with  approval;  nay,  rather  is  actually  set  down  as  something 
abnormal;  since  the  theocratic  blessing,  according  to  God's 
will,  passes  on  to  the  sons  of  the  first  and  lawful  wife,  as  to 
Isaac,  Judah,  and  not  to  the  sons  of  the  concubines  or  of  the 
additional  wife,  as  Ishmael,  Joseph,  etc.  And  it  has  justly 
been  found  to  be  significant,  that  this  violation  of  the  original 
order  of  things  began  with  the  race  of  Cain  (Gen.  iv.  19)." 
— Sys,  Chr.  Elh.,  p.  434.  Polygamy  was  not  the  general 
practice  among  the  Jews.*  It  was  only  a  rare  exception  in 
our  Savior's  time,  so  effectual  was  the  Old  Testament  in  re- 
moving it. 

8.  The  position  of  the  wives  under  the  Old  Testament 
WAS  eminently  just  and  happy. 

a.  The  law  equally  punished  the  husband  for  adultery — 
death  to  either  as  its  penalty.  (Deut.  xxii.  22-24;  Lev.  xx. 
10.)  With  us  nearly  all  the  guilt  is  on  the  woman.  In  such 
case  it  was  not  divorce,  but  death  to  both  the  guilty  parties. 

b.  The  petulant,  jealous  husband,  convicted  of  slandering 
his  wife,  was  publicly  whipped  and  exceedingly  heavily  fined. 
(Deut.  xxii.  13,  19.) 

c.  In  addition  to  whipping  and  fining  him,  he  had  to  keep 
her  as  his  wife,  and  could  never  divorce  her.  The  wisdom 
and  benevolence  of  never  being  permitted  to  divorce  her  was 
that  such  a  woman  was  too  good  to  be  divorced;  and,  if  di- 
vorced, as  he  had  injured  her  character,  she  would  not  likely 
be  able  to  marry  again. 

d.  The  law  compelled  the   husband  to   supply  food  and 

*  " Michaelis,  who  was  not  an  'orthodox'  {Laws  of  Moses,  III.  5, 
sec.  95),  asserts  that  polygamy  ceased  entirely  after  the  return  from  cap- 
tivity."—5w////'j  BiOIe  Diet.,  Vol.  III.,  p.  1795. 


196  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

clothing  to  his  wife,   even  in   case  he   took  a  second  one. 
(Exod.  xxi.  10.) 

e.  The  law  compelled  him  to  give  her  his  companionship 
and  all  included  in  the  conjugal  duty.  This  taught  him  that, 
as  well  as  something  to  eat  and  wear,  he  owed  his  wife  his 
love  and  companionship. 

It  is  objected  that  the  law  gave  power  of  divorcement  to 
only  the  husband. 

To  this  I  reply,  ^/^rj/,  Moses  never  gave  the  husband  the 
right  to  divorce  his  wife.  It  is  an  evil  which  Moses  found 
existing  among  the  Jews ;  and  an  evil  that  could  not  be  abol- 
ished without  entailing  greater  evils  than  it  is.  Tholuck  says : 
"The  existence  of  the  custom  of  doing  so  is  presupposed,  in 
Deut.  xxiv.  I." — TJ which! s  Sermon  on  the  Mounts  p.  226;  so 
^i\tx— Words  of  Jesus,  Vol  I.,  pp.  169,  170;  G.  W.  Clark— 
Commentary  on  Matt.  v.  31,  32;  Comp.  Commefiiary ;  Scott, 
Whitby,  Adam  Clarke,  Beza,  etc.  On  Exod.  xxi.  2,  Deut. 
xxiv.  1-4,  Beza,  in  a  laconic  manner,  comments:  "Because 
politic  laws  are  constrained  to  bear  with  some  things,  it  fol- 
loweth  not  that  God  alloweth  them  all." — Quoted  in  Comp. 
Commentary. 

Our  Savior  tells  us  that  Moses  never  originated,  but  only 
suffered  divorce  because  the  people  would  bear  nothing  better. 
The  Pharisees  claimed  that  Moses  commanded  divorce.  But 
Jesus  contradicts  them:  "Moses,  because  of  the  ha?'dness  of 
your  hearts,  suffered  ["The  Greek,  rendered  suffer,  errerpexptv 
— epitrcpo — is  used  in  the  Greek  classics  for  yielding  to  lust." 
— Pat.  Legg.,  802,  B. — ep.  tais  epitJimiais.  In  every  one  of 
its  occurrences  in  the  New  Testament,  it  implies  yielding  to 
desires  of  others. — yielded  your  lusts  as  the  less  of  two  evils. 
"Permitted — epetrepsen,  not  encteilato,  enjoined." — Bengel  on 
Matt.  xix.  8.]  you  put  away  your  wives;  but  from  the  begin- 
ning it  was  not  so." — ]\Iatt.  xix.  8.     "So  great  is  the  pervers- 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED.  1 97 

ity  of  the  human  mind,  that  there  are  not  a  few  things  by 
which  it  ought  to  be  put  to  the  blush,  as  the  Jews  ought  to 
have  been  in  the  cause  of  the  writing  of  divorcement,  but 
which  it  abuses  to  a  preposterous  clearing  (justification)  of 
itself."  "The  origin  of  wedlock  was  recorded  by  the  same 
Moses,  from  whom  our  Lord  demonstrates  the  matter." — 
Beiigds  Commc7itary^  in  loco.  Of  the  language  in  Deut.  xxiv., 
after  explaining  it  as  here  explained,  President  Hovey,  of 
Newton  Theological  Seminary,  says:  ''And  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered that  the  language  ....  was  a  part  of  the  civil 
code,  to  be  enforced  by  the  power  of  the  State.  As  such,  it 
was  adapted  to  the  moral  condition  of  the  people.  If  it  for- 
bear to  assert  the  original  law  of  marriage,  it  was  because  the 
nation  could  not  bear  it.  And  the  same  may  be  true  of  many 
nations  at  the  present  time;  the  public  conscience  may  be  so 
dull  and  perverted,  and  the  public  depravity  so  great,  as  to 
require  permission  of  divorce  for  more  causes  than  one." — 
Script.  Law  of  Divorce^  p.  28.  Let  it  be  understood  that 
Moses  never  enjoined  divorce. 

Second.  Moses  condemns  divorce  by  recording  the  original 
law  of  marriage.     (Gen.  ii.  22-24.) 

Third.  In  neither  commanding  nor  suffering  the  wife  to 
divorce  her  husband,  he  condemned  divorce.  It  was  the  cus- 
tom for  husbands  to  divorce  their  wives.  Their  wives,  as  the 
weaker,  not  being  able  to  divorce  their  husbands,  were  free 
from  the  sin  of  doing  so.  Moses  could  not  say,  "Let  her 
write  him  a  bill  of  divorcement;"  for  women  did  not  then 
divorce  their  husbands — there  was  not  then  such  custom  upon 
the  part  of  wives  to  regulate.  Had  he  commanded  them  to 
divorce  their  husbands,  he  would  have  originated  an  additional 
loosening  of  the  marriage  bond,  and  an  additional  violation 
of  the  seventh  commandment.     In  the  fact,  then,  that  he  did 


198  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

not  command  the  wife  to  divorce  her  husband,  we  have 
divorce  condemned. 

The  infidel  objection  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  Moses 
commanded  the  husband  to  divorce  his  wife — which  I  have  just 
proved  groundless  —  and  that  he,  therefore,  ought  to  have 
commanded  the  wife  to  divorce  her  husband.  On  this  the 
infidel  assumes  that,  in  Moses  not  saying,  "  Let  her  give  him 
a  writing  of  divorcement,"  he  was  partial  to  the  husband.  But 
we  have  just  seen  that  this  is  not  true.  Besides,  we  have  seen 
that  Moses  enjoined  equal  chastity  of  the  man — equal  faith- 
fulness to  the  marriage  bond. 

If  we  were  to  admit  that  it  was  then  the  custom  for  the 
wife  to  put  away  her  husband,  and  that  Moses  prohibited  her 
from  doing  so,  it  would  not  follow  that  he  did  so  from  par- 
tiality to  the  husband.  For  with  so  barbarous  a  people  as  the 
people  were  then,  we  can  see  how  prohibiting  the  man  from 
divorcing  his  wife  would  have  subjected  the  wife  to  abuse, 
death  to  get  rid  of  her;  while  the  wife,  being  the  "weaker 
vessel,"  more  tender  and  more  faithful,  would  have,  gener- 
ally, needed  no  such  an  escape  for  her  lust  to  save  her  hus- 
band from  its  outburst. 

Fourth.  The  Old  Testament  severely  condemns  the  hus- 
band for  divorcing  his  wife.  ''But  as  Moses  at  the  beginning 
took  care,  m  immediate  connection  with  his  precept,  to  pre- 
vent that  wanton  and  abominable  divorce  and  remarrying 
between  the  same  persons,  which  would  have  been  the  worst 
consequences  of  such  perversion  (Deut.  xxiv.  2-4) ;  so,  also, 
the  last  prophet,  Malachi,  who  at  the  close  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (Mai.  iv.  4)  enforces  the  whole  law  of  Moses,  with  its 
statutes  and  judgments,  till  the  coming  of  Him  who  was  to 
bear  similar  witness  against  polygamy  and  divorce,  alleging 
the  high  example  of  Abraham.  Deal  not  treacherously,  he 
says,  with  the  wife  of  thy  youth,  who  is  thy  companion  (help- 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  199 

meet)  and  the  wife  of  thy  covenant,  for  the  Lord  hath  been 
witness  between  thee  and  her;  that  is,  in  effect,  what  God 
hath  joined  together,  let  no  man  put  asunder!  (Prov.  ii.  17.) 
Take  heed  to  your  spirit,  he  says,  that  ye  apologize  not  by 
the  letter  of  the  law  for  your  sin  against  its  spirit.  '  If  he 
hate  her,  let  him  put  her  away,  saith  the  Lord'— that  is  the 
wicked  language  of  your  own  spirit;  but  it  is  also  said,  'Evil 
will  defile  his  garment,  saith  the  Lord.'— Mai.  ii.  14-16. 
Mark,  here,  again,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  utters  or  lays 
down  nothing  new,  even  where  it  seems  most  to  do  so."— 
Stier,  in  Words  of  Jesus,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  170,  171. 

While  noticing  divorce,  let  us  notice  its  wise  and  benevolent 
restrictions. 

First.  The  husband  could  not  divorce  his  wife  without  a 
bill  of  divorcement  from  the  court.  Deut.  xxiv.  1-3.  This 
bill  was  recorded  in  the  court.  In  this  way,  a  husband  could 
not  be  taking  a  new  wife  every  few  days;  neither  could  he 
exchange  wives  with  another;  neither  could  he  put  away  his 
wife  when  the  law  did  not  suffer  it.  Otherwise  he  could  have 
done  so,  as  the  law  would  have  been  in  his  own  hands. 

Second.  If  he  had  slandered  his  wife,  or  had  ravished  or 
seduced  her  before  marriage,  the  law  did  not  suffer  the  court 
to  grant  him  the  ''bill  of  divorcement."  Deut.  xxii.  13-19, 
28,  29;  Exod.  xxii.  16.  By  giving  divorce  to  the  seducer, 
ravisher  and  slanderer,  our  laws  mock  us.  To  save  himself 
from  punishment,  the  seducer  with  us  often  marries  her,  de- 
serts her  immediately,  and  soon  is  divorced!  Yet  we  are 
wiser  (?)  than  the  Old  Testament! 

Third.  To  prevent  the  scandal  and  demoralization  of  the 
same  persons  being  divorced,  marrying  each  other  again,  etc., 
etc.— again  and  again;  and  to  make  them  more  careful  about 
hasty  separations;  and  to  prevent  one  or  both  parties  from 
living  with  several  different  men  or  women,  then  returning  to 


200  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

each  other;  the  law  so  divorced  them  that  they  could  never 
again  marry  each  other.  Deut.  xxiv.  3,  4.  Tholuck  says 
of  this:  "In  the  first  place,  the  letter  of  divorce  was  to  be 
executed  before  witnesses  (proof  of  cause  mentioned  being 
real,  that  it  was  not  merely  arbitrary)  and  with  certain  form- 
alities; secondly,  after  its  despatch,  a  renewal  of  the  bond 
once  severed  was  not  possible  (Deut.  xxiv.  4) — a  condition 
which  constituted  no  slight  hindrance  to  separation  from  mo- 
mentary excitement." — Sermon  on  the  Mount,  p.  227.  Thus, 
God  protected  morals,  protected  the  wife  from  a  cruel  hus- 
band, preserved  order.  At  the  same  time,  he  taught  that 
marriage  meant  marriage,  and  not  the  fancies  and  abuses  of 
a  lustful,  cruel  husband. 

Having  pointed  out  the  superior  and  eminent  wisdom,  im- 
partiality and  benevolence  of  the  Old  Testament,  I  here  re- 
sume where  I  left  off — the  blessed  relation  of  husband  and  wife 
under  the  Old  Testament. 

/.  The  wife  exercised  an  important  influence  in  her  home. 
"She  appears  to  have  taken  her  part  in  family  affairs,  and 
even  to  have  enjoyed  a  considerable  amount  of  independence. 
For  instance,  she  entertains  the  guests,  at  her  own  desire  (2 
Kings  iv.  8),  in  the  absence  of  her  husband  (Judges  iv.  18), 
and  sometimes  even  in  defiance  of  his  wishes  (i  Sam.  xxv. 
14);  she  disposes  of  her  child  by  a  vow  without  any  reference 
to  her  husband  (i  Sam.  i.  24) ;  she  consults  with  him  as  to 
the  marriage  of  her  children  (Gen.  xxvn.  46);  her  suggestions 
as  to  any  domestic  arrangements  met  with  attention  (2  Kings 
iv.  9) ;  and  occasionally  she  criticises  the  conduct  of  her  hus- 
band in  terms  of  great  severity  (i  Sam.  xxv.  25;  2  Sam. 
vi.  20)." 

g.  The  relations  of  husband  and  wife  were  generally  very 
tender.  "A  newly-married  man  was  exempt  from  military 
service,  or  from  any  public  business  which  might  draw  him 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  201 

away  from  his  home,  for  the  space  of  a  year  (Deut.  xxiv.  5); 
a  similar  privilege  was  granted  to  him  who  was  betrothed 

(Deut.  XX.  7) He  is  occasionally  described  as 

the  'friend'  of  his  wife  (Jer.  iii.  20;  Hosea  iii.  i),  and  his 
love  for  her  is  frequently  noticed  (Gen.  xxiv.  67;  xxix.  18). 
On  the  other  hand,  the  wife  was  the  consolation  of  the  hus- 
band in  time  of  trouble  (Gen.  xxiv.  67);  and  her  grief  at 
his  loss  presents  a  picture  of  the  most  abject  woe  (Joel  i.  8). 
No  stronger  testimony,  however,  can  be  afforded  as  to  the 
ardent  affection  of  husband  and  wife,  than  that  which  we 
derive  from  the  general  tenor  of  the  book  of  Canticles." — 
SmWs  Bible  Diet.,  Vol.  III.,  p.  1806.  Of  course,  there  was 
the  contrary  to  this,  to  the  extent  that  the  Old  Testament  was 
unable  to  root  out  polygamy  and  other  evils. 

9.  The  position  of  women  in  general  under  the  Old 
Testament. 

a.  "Concubines"  of  the  Hebrews.  These  were  all  but  the 
first  wife.  "  In  judging  of  it,  we  must  take  into  regard  the 
following  considerations :  (i)  That  the  principle  of  monogamy 
was  retained  even  in  the  practice  of  polygamy,  by  the  distinc- 
tion made  between  the  chief  or  original  wife  and  the  second- 
ary wives,  or  as  the  ancient  version  terms  them,  'concubines' 
— a  term  which  is  objectionable,  inasmuch  as  it  conveys  to  us 
the  notion  of  an  ilHcit  and  unrecognized  position,  whereas  the 
secondary  wife  was  regarded  by  the  Hebrews  as  a  wife,  and 
her  rights  were  secured  by  law;  (2)  that  the  motive  which 
led  to  polygamy  was  the  absorbing  desire  of  progeny,  which 
is  prevalent  throughout  eastern  countries,  and  was  especially 
powerful  among  the  Hebrews;  and  (3)  that  the  power  of  a 
parent  (according  to  customs,  not  the  result  of  law.  All  peo- 
ples have  their  peculiar  marriage  and  family  customs)  over  his 
child,  and  of  a  master  over  his  slave,  was  paramount  even  in 
matters  of  marriage,  and  led,  in  many  cases,  to  phases  of 


202  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

polygamy  that  are  otherwise  quite  unintelHgible;  as,  for  in- 
stance, to  the  cases  where  it  was  adopted  by  the  husband  at 
the  request  of  the  wife,  under  the  idea  that  children  born  to  a 
slave  were  in  the  eye  of  the  law  the  children  of  the  mistress 
(Gen.  xvi.  3;  xxx.  4,  9);  or,  again,  to  cases  where  it  was 
adopted  at  the  instance  of  the  father  (Gen.  xxix.  23,  28;  Exod. 
xxi.  9,  10)." — Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  Vol.  ///.,  p.  1794.  Such 
polygamy  is  far  from  being  an  institution  of  ''kept  mistresses," 
as  in  modern  times. 

The  rights  of  these  second-class  wives  were  protected;  and 
so  were  those  of  their  children.  Deut.  xxi.  15-17.  They 
were  not  as  well  provided  for  by  law ;  for  they  were  an  ab- 
normal institution. 

h.  Wives  of  servants,  themselves  slaves  for  life,  who  were 
married  during  Hebrew  servitude.  Exod,  xxi.  4-6  refers  to 
only  cases  where  a  Hebrew  servant  had  married  a  Gentile 
slave— a  slave  for  life.  This  was  probably  of  rare  occurrence. 
As  the  Jews  believed  the  Gentile  slaves  were  slaves  for  life, 
and,  especially,  as  they  had  bought  them,  they  could  not  be 
induced  to  loose  them;  the  best  that  Moses  could  do  was  to 
provide  for  the  permanence  of  the  marriage.  This  was  by 
the  Hebrew  becoming  a  servant  for  life.  The  ceremony  of 
boring  the  ear  was  not  an  act  of  cruelty,  any  more  than  bor- 
ing ladies'  ears  for  rings,  but  was  a  ceremony  by  which  the 
slave  acknowledged  subjection  to  his  master.  Boring  the  ear 
for  that  purpose  was  an  ancient  custom.  If  Moses  had  not 
provided  by  law  for  this  Hebrew  to  become  a  servant  with  his 
wife,  rather  than  have  let  the  Gentile  wife  go  free  with  her 
husband,  the  cruel  master  would  have  broken  off  the  marriage 
relation.  Of  course,  it  would  have  been  better  to  have  set 
the  wife  free  with  her  husband,  if  it  could  have  been  done; 
but  the  "hardness  of  their  hearts,"  which  compelled  the  toler- 
ation of  polygamy,  and  slavery,  and  divorce,  compelled  Moses 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  203 

to  do  the  ''next  best"  thing.  This  special  provision  for  the 
Hebrew  husband  to  become  a  slave  for  life  with  his  Gentile 
wife  taught  the  sacredness  of  marriage,  and  thus  reflected  on 
polygamy  and  slavery;  for  why  make  this  exception  to  the 
law  that  a  Hebrew  could  not  be  a  slave  for  life,  unless  there 
was  something  very  sacred  in  marriage  requiring  it?  Not  only 
did  this  exception  to  the  law  teach  the  sacredness  of  marriage, 
but  it  taught  that  a  Gentile  and  Gentile  slave  was  so  equal  with 
any  one  else  that  she  ought  not  to  be  separated  from  her  hus- 
band. This  master  let  the  Hebrew  servant  take  her  to  wife, 
not  really  as  a  wife,  but  only  as  a  wife  for  while  serving  out 
his  time.  But  Jehovah  put  a  scathing  rebuke  on  such  doings, 
by  making  a  great  exception  to  the  law,  by  which  even  the 
master's  Hebrew  brother  xm^\.  become  a  Gentile  slave,  rather 
than  thus  trifle  with  a  woman's  affections  and  rights.  In  this 
Jehovah  reiterated  the  great  law,  even  through  Hebrew  slav- 
ery, that  '■ '  for  this  cause  shall  a  man  cleave  (be  cemented)  to 
his  wife."  This  one  law,  rightly  understood,  has  the  ten- 
dency to  restore  marriage  to  its  original  condition. 

c.  From  what  we  can  gather,  it  seems  that  the  husbands 
and  the  wives  of  slaves  were  not  sold  from  each  other  as  in 
other  nations.  The  law  taught  that  they  were  moral  beings ; 
the  moral  law  was  for  them  as  well  as  for  others;  the  above 
provision  for  the  Hebrew  servant  to  become  a  slave  for  life 
in  order  to  remain  with  his  wife  (of  course,  if  they  were  liable 
to  be  sold  from  each  other,  there  would  be  no  encouragement 
for  him  to  enter  slavery  for  life  in  order  to  remain  with  his 
wife) — all  teach  that  husbands  and  wives  could  not  be  sold 
from  each  other.  The  reader  will  please  consider  these  two 
points  on  the  marriage  of  slaves  as  showing  the  easy  condi- 
tion of  slaves  under  the  Old  Testament  law;  in  this  sense 
they  may  be  added,  in  the  reader's  mind,  to  Chapter  1 1,  and 
point  ''2." 


204  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

d.  The  power  of  the  parent  to  give  or  sell  his  daughter  in 
marriage  was  not  a  law  or  custom  originated  by  the  Old  Test- 
ament. See  Gen.  xxix.  i8,  27;  xxxiv.  11,  12;  Judges  xiv. 
3;  I  Sam.  xviii.  23,  26;.Prov.  ii.  17;  Mai.  ii.  14;  Gen.  xi. 
15;  Joshua  XV.  18,  19;  Judges  i.  12,  15;  i  Kings  ix.  16. 
This  custom,  though  objectionable,  insures  as  much  happiness 
as  many  of  the  ways  by  which  such  unions  are  now  formed. 
But  it  was  a  custom  of  many  nations.  Moreover,  the  chil- 
dren were  often — if  not  always — consulted  by  their  parents 
about  their  future  ''intendeds;''  and  the  mother,  sometimes, 
alone  gave  away  her  child  in  marriage.  Gen.  xxvii.  46; 
xxi.  21;  xxxiv.  34;  Judges  xiv.  i-io;  Gen.  xxiv.  58.  With 
the  customs  of  the  times  the  Old  Testament  did  not  directly 
meddle,  except  where  they  were  so  grossly  wrong  as  in  di- 
vorce, polygamy,  slavery,  etc.  Of  course,  its  nature  tended 
to  correct  them  in  those  things  in  which  they  were  not  in  the 
strictest  harmony  with  morality. 

e.  The  Old  Testament  places  the  highest  kind  of  estimate 
upon  woman.  In  Genesis  it  is  recorded  that  from  the  crudest 
form  of  animal  life  the  Creator  proceeded  to  the  highest  in 
the  animal  creation.  Each  succeeding  creation  is  higher  than 
the  previous.  Adam  appears  as  higher  than  the  beasts.  But 
the  crown  of  creation  is  not  in  him,  but  in  woman.  A  great 
biblical  scholar  says:  ''If  man  is  the  head,  she  is  the  crown 
— a  crown  to  her  husband,  the  crown  of  the  visible  creation. 
The  man  was  dust  refined,  but  woman  was  dust  doubly  re- 
fined— one  remove  further  from  the  earth."  Matthew  Henry 
well  remarks:  "That  woman  wis  taken  out  of  man,  not  out 
of  his  head  to  top  him,  nor  out  of  his  feet  to  be  trampled  un- 
der foot;  but  out  of  his  side  to  be  equal  to  him,  under  his 
rrm  to  be  protected,  and  near  his  heart  to  be  beloved." 

The  Old  Testament  presents  man  in  the  image  of  God; 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  205 

but  in  placing  woman  as  the  crown  of  creation,  it  places  her 
as  his  brighter  image. 

Some  of  the  most  beautiful,  touching,  and  tender  Old  Test- 
ament Scriptures  are  on  woman.  The  touching,  tender  his- 
tory of  the  care  of  Moses'  mother  for  him;  the  touching, 
tender  care  of  Pharaoh's  daughter  for  the  infant  Moses;  the 
touching,  tender  history  of  Naomi  and  Ruth ;  the  touching, 
tender  history  of  the  Shumanite  woman;  of  Hannah,  etc., 
all  present  the  Old  Testament  as  a  green  spot  in  the  desert. 
Women  are  spoken  of  in  the  Old  Testament  as  holding  emi- 
nent positions.  There  were  the  prophetesses  Miriam,  De- 
borah, Huldah,  Noadiah  and  Anna.  The  advice  of  others 
were  sought  in  emergencies.  They  took  their  part  in  public 
matters.  (2  Sam.  xiv.  2;  xx.  16-21;  Exod.  xv.  20;  i  Sam. 
xviii.  6,  7.)  But  she  appears  especially  in  her  glory  as  the 
"better  half"  of  man.  ''Whoso  findeth  a  wife  findeth  a 
good  thing,*  and  obtaineth  favor  of  the  Lord." — Prov.  xviii. 
22.  ''Houses  and  riches" — a  father — earth  can  give;  but 
"a  prudent  a//)^  is /w;;z  the  Lord." — Prov.  xix.  14.  In  this 
heavenly  gift  man  is  to  rejoice:  "Rejoice  with  the  wife  of 
thy  youth." — Prov.  v.  18.  Touching  is  the  record  of  the 
patriarch  Abraham,  mourning  the  death  of  Sarah,  the  wife 
of  his  youth  and  companion  in  the  trials  and  toils  of  his  pil- 
grimage: "And  Abraham  came  to  mourn  for  Sarah  and  to 
weep  for  her."  The  poor,  old  man,  broken  in  heart,  "a 
stranger  and  sojourner,"  left  alone,  with  no  place  to  bury  his 
dead — "And  Abraham  stood  up  from  before  his  dead,  and 
spoke  to  the  sons  of  Heth,  saying,  I  am  a  stranger  and  a  so- 
journer with  you.  Give  me  a  possession  of  a  burying-place 
with  you,  that  I  may  bury  my  dead  out  of  my  sight." — Gen. 
xxiii.  1-20. 


*  **Thing"  is  not  in  the  Hebrew.     See  **/^"  of  "7"  in  this  chapter — 
foot  note. 


■^' 


206  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

Woman  briftgs  the  Redeemer  info  the  7vorld.  Isa.  vii.  14. 
In  view  of  the  exalted  position  which  women  in  the  Old 
Testament  occupy,  we  can  but  pity  poor  IngersoU's  madness, 
when  he  says:  "There  is  not  one  word  about  woman  in  the 
Old  Testament,  except  the  words  of  shame  and  humiliation." 
(Ps.  liii.  I.) 

It  is  objected  that  woman  is  represented  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  introducing  sin  into  the  world.  But,  for  this,  Adam 
is  the  one  the  Bible  represents  as  being  chiefly  responsible — 
as  bringing  it  into  the  world.  (Rom.  v.  12;  i  Cor.  xv.  22.) 
Besides,  Genesis  condemns  Adam  by  recording  him  as  so 
mean  that  he  laid  his  transgression  on  his  wife.  (Gen.  iii.  12.) 
If  Eve  were  represented  as  introducing  sin  into  the  world, 
Adam  is  here  represented  as  deliberately  sinning,  then  as  guilty 
of  the  meanness  of  laying  his  sin  on  his  wife.  Gen.  iii.  16 
— latter  part  ' '  expresses  not  indeed  what  should  be,  but 
what  would  so  generally  be  the  effect  of  the  apostacy  on 
woman's  relations  in  the  married  state.  The  stronger  party 
in  this  relation,  instead  of  being  the  natural  guardian  and 
protector  of  the  weaker,  would  use  his  superior  power  to  sup- 
press and  debase  her.  Such  has  always  been  the  case,  except 
so  far  as  the  influence  of  revelation  has  counteracted  the  in- 
fluences of  the  fall." — T.  J.  Conant,  D.  D.,  on  Genesis,  pp. 
18,  19. 

10.  Children  under  the  Old  Testament. — With  the 
sanctity  of  marriage  and  the  purity  of  the  religious  teachings 
of  the  Old  Testament,  the  condition  of  Hebrew  children  must 
have  been  good.  No  one  can  candidly  read  the  laws  on  jus- 
tice, benevolence,  chastity,  etc.,  as  I  have  pointed  them  out, 
without  concluding  that  they  must  have  made  good  men  and 
women  of  the  Jewish  children.  The  parents  were  to  stricdy 
raise  their  children,  and  take  great  pains  to  teach  them  the 
laws  and  history  of  the  Old  Testament.     See  Deut.  iv.  9;  vi. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  207 

6-9;  xi.  18-21;  Joshua  xxii.  24,  25;  Deut.  xxxi.  12,  13; 
XXX.  2;  Ps.  cxxxii.  12;  Joshua  iv.  20-24.  The  moral  and 
intellectual  development  of  the  Jews  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment proves  that  their  children  were  well  raised. 

It  is  here  objected  that  "a  disobedient  child  was  stoned  to 
death." — Deut.  xxi.  18-21.  In  reply  to  this,  I,  ^rsf,  urge 
that  children  did  not  then  rule  their  parents  as  they  often  do 
now.  ** Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother." — Exod.  xx.  12; 
Col.  lii.  20;   Eph.  vi.  4;  Col.  iii.  21. 

Second.  The  child  to  be  stoned  was  a  son,  never  a  daughter. 
The  reader  will,  in  this  fact,  observe  the  tenderness  with  which 
the  Old  Testament  deals  with  women.  A  daughter  is  presumed 
by  this  law  to  need  no  such  law. 

Third.  The  son  must  be  a  "stubborn,  rebellious"  son,  a 
"glutton"  and  a  "drunkard."  Such  a  son  was  no  ordinary 
case,  but  a  hopeless  one.  No  other  son  could  be  punished 
by  this  law.* 

Fourth.  The  father's  authority  continuing  till  the  son  left 
home,  thisf  soij  was  probably  grown  up  to  the  age  of  man- 
hood. {Biblical  Antiquities^  by  Nevin^  p.  iT^^.^  This  made  the 
case  more  desperate. 

Fifth.  Inasmuch  as  the  theory  of  the  Jewish  law  was  cap- 
ital punishment  for  only  the  worst  of  crimes,  this  law  branded 
the  crime  of  such  a  profligate  son  one  of  the  worst.  Who 
will  deny  that  a  "gluttonous,"  "stubborn,"  "drunken"  and 
"rebellious"  son  is  not  one  of  the  greatest  griefs  to  a  parent! 

*The  four  Hebrew  words  to  describe  this  son  denote  the  worst,  low- 
est possible  case;  especially  does  pj*^^— 7;/ar^/i — rebellious  and  '^^^ 

T      T  -T 

— zalal.  The  latter  term  means  one  a  voluptuary,  a  debauchee.  Such 
a  son  was  evidently  grown  in  years,  possibly  old  enough  to  die  by  the 
law  for  such  crimes. 

t  The  fact  that  the  son  was  "chastened"  is  no  evidence  against  his 
being  "grown  up,"  since  the  authority  of  the  father  over  him  contin- 
ued while  he  was  with  the  father. 


2o8  OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

Sixth.  Only  ' '  the  parents  were  permitted  to  be  plaintiffs, 
and  both  must  concur  in  the  complaint  to  make  it  legal." 

Seventh.  The  son  must  be  brought  before  the  elders  of  the 
city,  tried  and  convicted  by  law  before  he  could  be  stoned  to 
death.  These  last  two  laws  were  a  check  on  any  haste  about 
the  execution.  The  Lord  well  knew  that  it  would  have  to  be 
a  most  desperate  case  to  get  the  concurrence  of  father  and 
mother  in  the  death  of  their  own  offspring.  If  a  son  happened 
to  have  unfeeling  parents,  when  tried  before  these  gray-headed 
sages,  the  parents  would  be  found  careless  in  their  raising, 
and  as  much  moved  by  prejudice  in  bringing  him  before  the 
elders  of  the  city.  In  such  case,  a  conviction  would  be  very 
improbable. 

Eighth.  This  law  would  so  effectually  intimidate  and  re- 
strain, that  there  could  be  few  such  sons  in  all  Jewish  history. 

Ninth.  "There  is  no  case  on  record  in  which  a  person  was 
put  to  death  under  this  law." — Halley,  in  Alleged  Discrep.,  p. 
287. 

Such  a  law  with  us  would  make  less  ''fast  young  men" 
than  we  have. 

In  comparing  the  Hebrew  family  with  the  family  of  heathen 
and  infidel  nations,  etc.,  we  find  the  former  so  far  superior 
that  they  scarcely  admit  of  a  comparison,  a.  "With  the  an- 
cients the  father  alone  had  the  power  over  his  children  of 
life  and  death,  and,  generally,  without  restraint  of  law." — 
Lecky's  Europ.  Mar.,  Vol.  11.^  p.  28.  "  Pagan  and  Christian 
authorities  are,  however,  united  in  speaking  of  infanticide  as 
a  crying  vice  of  the  empire." — Idem,  p.  29.  "The  ancients 
generally  carried  the  power  of  the  parent  to  a  most  atrocious 
extent  over  the  person  and  liberty  of  the  child.  The  Per- 
sians, Egyptians,  Greeks,  Gauls  and  Romans  tolerated  infant- 
icide, and  allowed  to  fathers  a  very  absolute  dominion  over 
their  offspring;  but  the  Romans,  according  to  Justinian,  ex- 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  209 

ceeded  all  other  people,  and  the  liberty  and  lives  of  the 
children  were  placed  within  the  power  of  the  father." — Kenfs 
Com.  on  Afn.  Law. ,  Vol.  II.,  p.  211.  * 'Until  Christianity  made 
the  change,  this  fearful  crime  continued." — Idei7i,  p.  212. 
Confucius  taught  that  while  a  son's  ,"  parents  are  alive,  the 
son  may  not  go  abroad  to  a  distance.  If  he  does  go  abroad, 
he  must  have  a  fixed  place  to  go  to;  and  should  they  punish 
him,  he  does  not  allow  himself  to  murmur." — Confucius,  trans- 
lated by  Legge,  p.  137.  Legge  says  of  Confucius'  system: 
* '  There  is  little  room  left  for  the  play  and  development  of 
natural  affection. " — Idein,  /.  7 1.  *  'Among  the  Jews,  as  among 
most  nations  of  antiquity,  the  parental  power  was  absolutely 
despotic,  even  to  life  and  death.  The  Mosaic  law,  however, 
enacted  that  a  guilty  son  could  not  be  punished  with  death, 
except  by  judicial  sentence  of  the  community." — Milman^s 
Hist,  of  Jews,  Vol.  I.,  p.  22 — quoted  by  Mozkfs  Ruling  Ideas 
of  Early  Ages,  p.  46.  Gen.  xlii.  37  shows  that  the  Jews  be- 
fore this  were  like  others. 

b.  Heathen  nations  have  always  treated  their  women  as  bad 
as  they  have  treated  their  children.  In  Greece,  women  had 
no  voice  as  to  who  should  be  their  husbands.  *'And  it  must 
be  admitted  that  the  legal  disabilities  under  which  they  labored 

were  neither  few  nor  small They  had  no  voice 

in  answering  the  most  important  of  questions;  ....  of 
saying  yes  or  no." — Ancient  and  Modern  Greece,  by  Felton,  p. 
235.  Lecky  says:  ''In  general,  the  position  of  virtuous  Greek 
women  was  a  very  low  one.  She  was  under  a  perpetual  tutel- 
age; first  of  all,  to  her  parents,  who  disposed  of  her  hand; 
then  to  her  husband,  and  in  her  days  of  widowhood  to  her 

sons Marriage  was  regarded  chiefly  in  a  civil 

light,  as  a  means  of  producing  citizens;  and  in  Sparta  it  was 
ordered  that  old  or  infirm  husbands  should  cede  their  young 
wives  to  stronger  men,  who  could  produce  vigorous  soldiers 


2IO  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

for  the  State For  the  most  part,  virtuous  women 

scarcely  appear  in  Greek  history In  general,  the 

only  women  who  attracted  the  notice  of  the  people  were  the 
courtesam.''' — Hist,  Europ.  Mor.^  Vol.  II.,  p.  306.  On  page 
308  Lecky  informs  us  that  they  cared  nothing  for  virtue,  and 
that  * '  the  most  virtuous  men  habitually  and  openly  entered 
into  relations  which  would  be  now  almost  universally  cen- 
sured." See  also  pages  296,  299,  310,  311,  314;  Schaff's 
Hist.  Chr.  Church,  Vol.  /.,  /.  326;  Wuttke's  Eth.,  Vol.  /,  p. 
85;  Wilson^ s  Outlines  of  History,  p.  661.  Plato  and  Socrates, 
the  leading  philosophers,  taught  and  practiced  these  immoral 
horrors.  For  instance,  Lecky  informs  us  that  Socrates  visited 
a  courtesan,  took  his  disciples  with  him,  advised  her  about 
'Mier  lovers,  with  no  kind  of  reproach  on  his  part;  the  best 
and  wisest  of  the  Greeks  left  his  hostess  with  a  graceful  com- 
pliment to  her  beauty." — Hist.  Europ.  Mor.,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  313, 
314.* 

The  condition  of  women  among  the  Romans  was  substan- 
tially the  same. — Lecky  s  Hist.  Europ.  Mor.,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  317, 
319,  322,  324,  333,  334,  336.  According  to  TertuUian,  Ro- 
man "divorce  is  the  fruit  of  marriage."  Draper — another 
infidel  —  says  of  Rome  in  her  last  days,  under  infidelity: 
"Women  of  the  higher  class  were  so  lascivious,  depraved 
and  degenerate,  that  men  could  not  be  compelled  to  contract 
matrimony  with  them;  marriage  was  displaced  by  concubin- 

*  Speaking  of  the  infidel  attempt  to  misrepresent  ancient  morals, 
by  selecting  the  few  exceptions  to  ancient  immorality  and  holding 
them  before  the  people,  that  eminent,  scholarly  writer  and  historian, 
Prof.  George  P.  Fisher,  says:  "But  when  one  hears  laudations  of  an- 
cient morals,  as  if  there  were  a  state  of  things  for  a  moment  to  be 
compared  with  the  pure  atmosphere  of  Christian  society,  he  can  hardly 
avoid  reminding  the  authors  of  such  false  and  ignorant  comparisons, 
that  the  noblest  man  of  the  ancients  went  with  his  disciples  to  visit  a 
prostitute,  not  to  advise  her  to  sin  no  more,  but  to  talk  on  the  question 
how  to  ply  her  occupation  with  more  profit." — North  American  Review^ 
February,  1882,  p.  176. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  211 

age;  even  virgins  were  guilty  of  inconceivable  immodesties; 
great  officers  of  the  court,  and  ladies  of  the  court,  of  promis- 
cuous and  naked  exhibitions." — Intel.  Dzvelop.  of  Europe,  p. 
187.  With  these  facts  before  him.  Underwood,  a  leading 
American  infidel  lecturer  and  writer,  says:  ''Woman's  posi- 
tion in  the  pagan  empire  was  one  of  great  social  dignity." 
He  rebukes  "the  clergy"  for  regarding  this  condition  of 
women  as  little  better  than  prostitution,  and  says  this  concu- 
binage "was  strictly  legal  and  hofiorable.'^ — Inf.  of  Chr.  on 
Civ.,  by  Underwood,  pp.  i8,  19  (my  italics).  Lecky  says: 
"The  practice  of  bringing  up  orphans  for  prostitution  was 
equally  common." — Hist.  Europ.  Mor.,  p.  233.  He  says: 
"There  can  be  no  question  that  the  moral  condition  of  the 
sex  was  exceedingly  low." — Idem,  p.  326;  also,  Hadley  on 
Roman  Law,  p.  143;  Wilson's  Outlines  of  History,  p.  753; 
Schaffs  Hist.  Chr.  Church,  Vol.  /.,  //.  327-329;  Milman's 
Hist.  Chr.,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  294,  295;  Michelef s  Hist.  Erance, 
Vol.  II.,  pp.  297,  302;  The  Late  Civil  War,  p.  51;  Merivale's 
Hist.  Romans;  Prof.  George  P.  Fisher,  in  North  American 
Review,  etc. 

With  the  Chinese  and  Hindoos,  and  other  heathen,  the 
matter  was  and  is,  if  possible,  worse  than  among  the  Greeks 
and  Romans.  Mencius  taught  affection  between  father  and 
son  and  sovereign  minister,  but  "between  husband  and  wife 
attention  to  their  separate  functions." — Confucius,  p.  105. 
Confucius  taught  that  woman  "can  determine  nothing  of  her- 
self, and  is  subject  to  the  rule  of  three  obediences.  When 
young,  she  must  obey  her  father  and  elder  brother;  when 
married,  she  must  obey  her  husband ;  when  her  husband  is 
dead,  she  must  obey  her  son.  She  may  not  think  of  marry- 
ing the  second  time.  No  instructions  or  orders  must  issue 
from  the  harem.  Woman's  business  is  simply  the  prepara- 
tion and  supply  of  wine  and  food.     Beyond  the  threshold  of 


212  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

her  apartments,  she  should  not  be  known  for  evil  or  for  good. 
She  may  not  cross  the  boundaries  of  a  State  to  accompany  a 
funeral.  She  may  take  no  step  on  her  own  motion,  and  may 
come  to  no  conclusion  of  her  own  deliberation.  There  are 
five  women  who  may  not  be  taken  in  marriage  :  the  daughter 
of  a  rebellious  house ;  the  daughter  of  a  disorderly  house ; 
the  daughter  of  a  house  which  has  produced  criminals ;  the 
daughter  of  a  leprous  house ;  and  the  daughter  who  has  lost 
her  father  and  elder  brother.  The  grounds  for  divorce  are 
disobedience  to  her  husband's  parents;  not  giving  birth  to  a 
son;  dissolute  conduct;  jealousy  (of  her  harem);  talkative- 
ness, and  thieving.  The  three  considerations  which  may 
overrule  these  grounds  are — First,  if  she  was  taken  from  a 
home,  she  has  now  no  home  to  return  to;  second,  if  she  has 
passed  with  her  husband  through  three  years'  mourning  for 
his  parents ;  third,  if  the  husband  has  become  rich  from  being 
poor.  All  these  regulations  were  adopted  by  the  sages  in 
harmony  with  the  natures  of  man  and  woman,  and  to  give 
importance  to  the  ordinance  of  marriage." — Confucius^  p.  io6. 
So,  it  seems,  Confucius  put  away  his  wife. — Confucius,  p.  71. 
Buddha,  the  founder  of  Buddhism,  the  doctrine  of  about 
300,000,000  of  the  race,  says  :  ''So  long  as  the  love  of  man 
towards  woman,  even  the  smallest,  is  not  destroyed,  so  long 
is  his  mind  in  bondage,  as  the  calf  that  drinks  milk  is  to  its 
mother." — Science  of  Religion,  by  Max  Midler,  p.  270.  Bud- 
dha's abominable  doctrine  on  women,  his  followers  have  always 
closely  followed.  The  same  is  true  of  Brahmanism,  with  its 
1 10,000,000  of  devotees.  Their  sacred  books  and  the  writings 
of  their  priests  unite  in  degrading  women.  In  the  ''Hindoo 
Proverbs,"  among  other  characteristics  of  a  virtuous  woman, 
we  read  that  she  is  one  "who  bears  a  son,  and  who  rises  from 
sleep  before  her  husband ;  who  always  acts  according  to  her 
husband's  pleasure;  who  goes  not  out  of  the  house." — He- 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  213 

brew  Student,  Apr.,  p.  9.  With  Mohammedanism  the  condi- 
tion of  women  is  about  the  same.  It  numbers  about  160,- 
000,000.  So  of  all  heathen.  No  wonder  at  the  countless 
murders  of  infant  females,  and  at  the  anxiety  of  widows  to 
burn  themselves  to  get  out  of  a  cruel  world.  I  have  space 
here  to  only  hint  at  the  horrible  facts  in  my  possession  upon 
the  condition  of  all  heathen  women. 

Infidels  have  endeavored  to  lessen  the  force  of  the  condi- 
tion of  heathen  women,  and  disparage  the  Bible,  by  the  ac- 
count which  Tacitus  gives  of  the  condition  of  heathen  women 
in  ancient  Germany.  But  Guizot  has  shown  that  Tacitus  was 
only  exaggerating  the  condition  of  the  Germans,  in  a  spirit 
of  ill-humor  against  his  countrymen;  and  that,  like  all  other 
heathen,  the  Germans  were  barbarians,  and  kept  their  women 
in  a  very  low  condition.  See  Guizofs  Hist,  of  Civ.,  Vol.  /., 
pp.  415,  422-429,  72.  Guizot  pronounces  the  superiority  of 
these  Germans,  "as  regards  the  relations  of  the  two  sexes, 
etc.,  mere  fancies." 

The  reader  will  here  please  turn  to  Chapter  III.  of  this 
book,  and  read  infidel  morals  (?),  infidel  virtue  (?),  and  the 
degradation  of  women  by  infidelity.  Several  years  ago,  the 
writer  happened  to  attend  the  Minnesota  State  Spiritual  Con- 
vention. That  voted  down  ''free  love,"  not  because  it  re- 
garded it  wrong,  but  because  it  would  injure  its  influence. 
No  bawdy-house  convention  would  have  been  more  disregard- 
ful  of  the  most  sacred  laws  of  religion  and  morals.  Two 
national  conventions  of  Spiritualists  have  refused  to  disfellow- 
ship  the  most  known  libertines.  One  of  them,  at  Chicago, 
adopted  "the  only  plan  approved  by  its  committee,"  and  es- 
pecially provided  that  no  charge  should  ever  be  entertained 
against  any  member,  and  that  any  person,  without  any  regard 
to  moral  character,  might  become  a  member." — Spiritualism, 
by  M.  Grant,  p.  45 ;  see  Spiritualism,  by  W.  M'' Donald.    Lecky 


214  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

thus  disparages  women  :  ' '  Intellectually,  inferior  to  man  ; 
women  very  rarely  love  truth;  little  capable  of  impartiality 
or  of  doubt;  rarely  generous  in  their  opinions;  less  capable 
than  men  of  perceiving  qualifying  circumstances."  He  slurs 
religion  and  women  in  the  same  breath:  ''Innumerable  pul- 
pits support  this  thought,  and  represent  with  a  fervid  rhetoric 
well  fitted  to  excite  the  nerves  and  imaginations  of  women. ^' — 
Hist.  Europ.  Mar.,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  ^jj,  381  (my  italics).  Un- 
derwood had  so  little  regard  for  women  and  for  virtue,  that 
he  said  their  degraded  condition  in  Rome  was  ''legal  and 
honorable." — C/ir.  and  Civ.,  p.  19.  The  infidel  reign  in 
France,  in  1791,  "for  the  first  time  among  a  civilized  people," 
abolished  the  law  protecting  female  virtue,  and  "estabUshed 
the  principle  that  seduction  is  neither  a  crime  nor  the  viola- 
tion of  any  contract." — Org.  of  Labor,  by  Le  Play,  p.  164. 
Ever  since  they  made  this  law,  women  have  been  degraded 
in  France.  In  England,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  women 
were  degraded  by  the  reign  of  infideHty.  Dryden,  an  infidel, 
wrote : 

"Why  should  a  foolish  marriage  vow, 
Which  long  ago  was  made, 
Oblige  us  to  each  other  now, 

When  passion  has  decayed? 
We  loved,  and  we  loved,  as  long  as  we  could, 
Till  our  love  was  loved  out  of  us  both. 
But  our  marriage  is  dead, 
When  the  pleasure  is  fled ; 
'Twas  pleasure  first  made  it  an  oath." 

Walter  Scott's  indignation  at  this  infidel  reign  is  well  put: 

"Dryden,  in  immortal  strain, 
Had  raised  the  table  round  again, 
But  that  a  ribald  king  and  court, 
Bade  him  toil  on  to  make  them  sport; 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 


215 


**  Demanded  for  their  niggard  pay, 
Fit  for  their  souls,  a  looser  lay. 
Licentious  satires,  song  and  play; 
The  world  defrauded  of  the  high  design. 

Profaned  the  God-given  strength  and  marred  the  lofty  lines." 
—Scott's  Poetical  Works,  Vol.  T//., /.  j6— quoted. 

So  Pope,  an  infidel,  writes  to  a  female  friend  to 

**Not  quit  the  free  innocence  of  life, 
For  the  dull  glory  of  a  virtuous  wife." 

— Reed's  Hist,  English  Lit.,  p.  22'j,  2^y. 

Taine,  a  skeptic,  says  of  the  condition  of  women  under 
this  infidel  reign:  **It  had  neither  taste  nor  refinement,  and 
wished  to  appear  as  if  it  possessed  them.  Panderers  and  li- 
centious women  bullying  and  butchering  courtiers;  .... 
a  king  who  would  bandy  obscenities  in  public  with  his  half- 
naked  mistresses — such  was  this  illustrious  society." — Taine' s 
Hist.  English  Lit.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  13.  Macaulay  says  of  this  m- 
fidel  time:  ''The  culture  of  the  female  mind  seems  to  have 
been  almost  entirely  neglected.  If  a  damsel  had  the  least 
smattering  of  literature,  she  was  recognized  as  a  prodigy. 
Ladies  highly  born,  highly  bred,  and  naturally  quick-witted, 
were  unable  to  write  a  line  in  their  mother  tongue  without 
solecisms  and  faults  of  spelling,  such  as  a  charity  girl  would 
now  be  ashamed  to  commit.  The  explanation  may  easily  be 
found.  Extravagant  licentiousness  ....  was  now  the 
mode,  and  licentiousness  had  produced  its  ordinary  effect,  the 
moral  and  intellectual  degradation  of  \Non\QTi.'"  —  History  of 
England,  Vol.  I,  p.  117.  Reed  says:  "  No  company  of  writ- 
ers has  sunk  into  such  general  and  merited  oblivion  as  the 
British  infidels  who  were  the  precursors  af  the  French  skep- 
tics, in  the  last  century." — Hist.  English  Lit., p.  239.  See 
Buckle's  Hist.  Civ.,  Vol.  /.,//.  261,  262;   Guizofs  Hist.  Civ., 


2l6  OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

Vol.  I.  J  p.  244.  Well  did  Bancroft,  the  great  American  his- 
torian, say  of  infidelity:  "Her  garments  are  red  with  blood, 
and  ruin  is  her  delight;  her  despair  may  stimulate  to  voluptu^ 
ousness  and  revenge;  she  never  kindled  with  the  disinterested 
love  of  men." — Histoty  of  United  States,  Vol.  V,  pp.  22,  24. 
See  Josephus  against  Apion. 

We  have  now  seen  that  the  Old  Testament,  in  its  teachings 
in  regard  to  the  family,  rises  immeasurably  and  dazzlingly 
above  all  heathen  and  infidel  writers  and  practice;  that,  upon 
the  family,  it  contains  not  a  moral  stain.  If  possible,  infi- 
delity IS  more  degrading  to  women  than  heathenism.  Is  the 
infidel's  immorality  the  cause  for  his  venom  towards  the  Old 
Testament?  Would  it  not  be  better  for  infidelity  to  look  at 
its  own  morals,  before  assailing  those  of  the  Bible?  The 
writer  suggests  that  every  Christian  press  their  abominable 
system  home  upon  them.  Mere  defensive  war  will  not  even 
answer  for  defense.  An  aggressive  war  is  the  only  thoroughly 
defensive  war.  Let  it  be  done  in  sorrow  and  love  for  the  de- 
luded followers  of  despair  and  evil.  As  was  doubting  Thomas, 
let  us  hope  that  they  may  be  enlightened. 


OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  217 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Things  Infidels  object  to,  Proof  of  the  Divine  Origin 
OF  THE  Bible. 

I.  Hebrews  taking  in  war  female  captives  to  them- 
selves.— This  is  spoken  of  in  Deut.  xx.  14;  xxi.  10-15; 
Numb.  xxxi.  17,  18.  The  infidel  objects  that  these  women 
were,  by  command  of  God,  taken  for  ''prostitution." 

In  replying  to  these  objections,  I  ask  the  reader  to  turn  to 
the  rules  of  interpretation  from  Blackstone,  Greenleaf  and 
Kent,  in  the  second  chapter  of  this  book.  I  here  emphatic- 
ally enter  my  protest  against  the  reckless  and  unfair  way  in 
which  infidels  treat  the  Old  Testament— the  whole  Bible. 
Any  lawyer  who  should  attempt  to  treat  our  laws  in  such  a 
manner  would  be  hooted  out  of  court.  If  the  reader  is  so 
decided  to  reject  the  Old  Testament  that  he  is  not  willing  to 
interpret  it  stricdy  by  the  well-established  laws  of  interpreta- 
tion, he  may  as  well  lay  down  this  book  and  wallow  in  Tom 
Paine,  or  anything  that  suits  his  taste.  Abiding  by  these  laws 
of  interpretation,  the  so-called  ''moral  difficulties"  of  the  Old 
Testament  readily  vanish.  Let  the  reader  remember  the 
doctrines  of  infidelity  in  this  connection.  See  Chapters  IL, 
III.,  and  XII.  of  this  book.  Those  who  hold  these  infidel 
doctrines  are  the  ones  who  have  so  much  to  do  in  making  and 
urging  these  objections. 

a.  These  women  could  not,  in  any  case,  have  been  saved 
for  prostitution,  because  the  Jewish  law  condemned  adulterers 
to  death.    "Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery;"  "whoremongers 


2l8  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

and  adulterers  God  will  judge"— is  the  law  and  penalty  of  the 
whole  Bible.  Exod.  xx.  14;  Heb.  xiii.  4;  Deut.  xxii.  22-24; 
Lev.  XX.  10;  Deut.  xxii.  25.  There  is  no  possibility  of  es- 
caping from  these  Scriptures  on  the  plea  that  these  laws  were 
not  intended  to  govern  the  Jews  in  their  relations  to  Gentiles. 
I  have  shown  they  are  of  universal  application.  See  Chapter 
X.  of  this  book. 

b.  Because  of  the  high  estimate  which  the  Jewish  Scriptures 
place  upon  woman,  the  family,  in  no  case  could  these  women 
have  been  saved  for  prostitution.     See  last  chapter. 

c.  They  could  not,  in  any  case,  have  been  kept  for  prosti- 
tution, because  of  the  holiness  of  the  whole  Jewish  law.  The 
law  which  we  have  examined  in  all  the  previous  chapters  can 
not  possibly  do  otherwise  than  condemn  every  wrong.  As 
Blackstone,  Greenleaf,  Kent  and  Hedge  say:  "Interpret  any 
part  of  the  law  after  the  'will  of  its  maker,'  after  what  it  says 
in  any  other  place,  especially  upon  the  same  subject,  and 
compare  it  altogether." 

d.  In  no  case  could  these  women  have  ever  been  saved  for 
prostitution,  because  the  law  says  they  were  to  be  saved  for 
"wives."  "And  hast  a  desire  unto  her,  that  thou  shouldest 
have  her  to  thy  wife.^^ — Deut.  xxi.  11.^  If  wife  means 
"lust,"  etc.,  then  these  women  were  to  be  saved  for  lust; 
otherwise,  not  possibly  so. 

e.  This  law  regulated  only  a  custom  among  heathen  nations, 
to  seize  and  abuse  females,  in  time  of  war.  Read  2  Kings 
viii.  12;  Isa.  xiii.  16-18;  Lam.  v.  11;  Dan.  xi.  37;  Hosea 
xiii.  16;  Amos  i.  13;  Zech.  xiv.  2;  i  Sam.  xxx.  2;  Amos 
vii.  17.     Because  of  the  horrible  abuse  of  women  in  ancient 


*  As  we  have  seen,  according  to  infidel  "morals,"  "wife"  is  a  word 
to  indicate  whatever  notion  we  please.  We  need  not  wonder  that 
"wife"  in  Deut.  xxi.  II  is,  by  infidels,  interpreted  to  mean  "prosti- 
tute."    See  Chapter  III.  of  this  book,  and  latter  part  of  Chapter  XII. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  219 

wars,  one  of  the  most  powerful  incentives  to  a  vigorous  and 
courageous  defense  was  in,  "Fight  for  your  daughters,  your 
wives,  and  your  houses." — Neh.  iv.  14.  By  this  law,  the 
:  Lord  made  them  take  these  women  for  wives  instead  of  for 
abuse.  The  ''hardness  of  their  hearts"  was  such  that  to 
have  not  thus  regulated  the  custom  of  treating  female  cap- 
tives, would  have  insured  what  infidels  recklessly  claim  this 
"law  was  given  for" — the  abuse  of  these  women. 

/.  This  regulation  had  great  respect  for  the  feelings  of  these 
captive  females.  Before  they  could  be  taken  for  wives,  to 
give  them  time  to  mourn  the  loss  of  their  friends,  become  ac- 
quainted with  their  future  husbands — become  reconciled  to 
their  new  condition,  they  had  to  "shave  their  heads,"  and 
"pare  their  nails;"  "put  off  the  raiment  of  their  captivity," 
and  remain  in  that  condition  at  least  one  month.  The  shaved 
head  and  pared  nails  enforced  the  time  required  before  the 
marriage  could  take  place — hair  and  nails  must  grow  out  be- 
fore the  marriage. 

g.  This  ceremony  was  a  token  of  her  renouncing  her  relig- 
ion and  becoming  a  proselyte  to  the  rehgion  of  the  Jews. 
Doubtless  she  gave  some  attention,  in  this  "month,"  to  the 
new  religion.  The  law  says  one  month  is  the  required  time 
before  the  marriage.  But  this  law  is  not  to  be  interpreted  so 
as  to  not  leave  a  longer  time,  if  the  husband  desired  more 
time,  to  reconcile  his  wife  to  her  new  condition. 

Ji.  In  case  the  soldier  was,  by  foolish  passion,  moved,  at 
the  time  of  the  c.ipture,  to  think  he  would  take  a  captive 
for  a  wife,  which  could  result  in  only  an  unhappy  marriage, 
the  time  required  by  this  law  before  he  could  marry  her, 
gave  him  time  to  reflect  and  reconsider  tlie  foolish  intention. 
With  so  barbarous  a  people,  one  month  was  probably  all  that 
was  usually  required  for  these  ends;  and,  perhaps,  all  that 
the  law  could  limit  them  to,  even  if  more  time  was  desirable. 


2  20  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

/.  This  law  was  for  only  time  of  war.  Even  among  civil- 
ized people,  war  hardly  knows  law.  But  the  Old  Testament 
thus  enforced  the  law  of  purity  upon  a  barbarous  people  in 
ii7ne  of  war.  The  fourteenth  verse  of  the  twenty-first  chapter 
of  Deuteronomy  has  no  bearing  against  these  humane  pro- 
visions; for  fhey  could  leave  the  wives  taken  from  their  own 
people  if  they  had  ''no  delight"  in  them.     Jl^^^fl  is  the  word 

T    :  /-    T 

appHed  to  God's  delight  in  man;  man's  delight  in  under- 
standing, (a.)  But  they  had  to  leave,  etc.,  their  wives  in  the 
same  manner  in  which  they  left  the  wives  of  their  own  peo- 
ple—  by  trial  and  "a  bill  of  divorcement."  See  divorce  in 
last  chapter,  (p.)  They  were  forbidden  to  sell  them  for  slaves. 
2.  The  slaughter  of  the  Midianites  and  saving  their 

YOUNG   females   TO   THEMSELVES. 

The  Midianites  deserved  this  slaughter.  First.  The  Midian- 
ites were  as  degraded  idolaters  as  ever  cursed  the  earth.  Their 
worship  was  the  worship  of  Baal-Peor.  The  word  is  com- 
pounded of  two  Hebrew  words  and  signifies  a  mixture  of 
cruel  and  voluptuous  worship.  Gesenius  defines  the  word 
rendered  Peor:  "An  idol  of  the  Moabites,  in  whose  worship 
females  prostituted  themselves." — Ges.  Hcb.  Lex.,  p.  859. 
This  prostitution  was  a  part  of  the  worship  of  the  Midianites! 
The  worship  of  Baal  was  bloody  and  cruel,  in  which  human 
sacrifices  were  offered,  (i  Kings  xviii.  28;  Jer.  xix.  4,  5.) 
Where  is  the  man  who  will  deny  that  a  people,  beyond  reach 
of  reformation,  who  will  offer  human  sacrifices  and  worship 
by  prostitution,  does  not  deserve  death,  for  that  alone?  For 
less  offenses  than  that  our  law  takes  life. 

Second.  But  their  worship  was  treason.  Jehovah  being  the 
King  of  Israel,  having  an  organized  civil  or  politico-eccle- 
siastical government  for  the  Jews,  the  worship  of  Baal-Peor, 
accepting  his  government,  etc.,  was  rebellion  and  treason 
against  God.     Tiie  Midianites  did  all  they  could  to  seduce 


OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED.  22  1 

the  Jews  into  their  abominable,  horrible  and  cursed  religion ; 
and,  thus,  into  rebellion  and  treason  against  their  King. 
They  were  the  more  dangerous  seducers  from  having  a  com- 
mon descent  from  Abraham.  By  their  seduction  they  had 
brought  a  plague  upon  Israel,  in  which  24,000  of  the  Israel- 
ites had  perished.  See  Numb.  xxv.  For  these  things  the 
Lord  commanded,  "Vex  the  Midianites,  and  smite  them:  for 
they  vex  you  with  their  wiles.'' — Numb.  xxv.  18;  xxxi.  15- 
18.  Some  of  them  escaped;  and,  after  many  years,  so  fully 
recovered  their  power  as  to  nearly  defeat  the  whole  plan  of 
redemption  by  destroying  Israel,  to  whom  was  committed  the 
* 'oracles  of  God,"  and  the  work  of  giving  the  world  its  Re- 
deemer. (Rom.  iii.  2.)  See  Judges  i.  and  ii.,  etc. ;  Judges  viii. 
28.  When  we  see  how  Hcentious,  cruel  and  seductive  these 
Midianites  were,  and  how  they  recovered  power  to  vex  Israel 
after  the  terrible  slaughter  mentioned  in  Numb.  xxxi. ,  in  the 
whole  matter  we  see  nothing  wrong.  The  males  of  all  ages 
were  slain  to  guard  against  their  ever  being  able  to  rise  up 
against  Israel.  For  this  reason,  all  male  infants  born  and  in- 
fants unborn  (alluded  to  and  intended  in  slaying  ''every 
woman  that  hath  known  man  by  lying  with  him")  were  slain. 
Of  course,  the  females  could  never  retaliate  or  oppress. 
Mercy  spared  these  female  children.  The  same  mercy  would 
have  spared  the  male  infants,  but  for  the  fact  that  they  would 
have  endeavored  to  retaliate  when  grown  up.  As  their  licen- 
tious habits  and  worship  left  no  virgi?ts  among  those  of  adult 
or  near  adult  age,  all  adult,  or  nearly  so,  women  were  slain. 
Very  little  is  known  of  the  relation  of  the  Midianites  to  the 
Moabites.  They  both  are  known  to  have  had  the  licentious 
worship  of  Baal-Peor.  "The  women  of  Moab  are  indeed 
said  to  have  commenced  (Numb.  xxv.  i)  the  idolatrous  forni- 
cation, which  proved  so  destructive  to  Israel,  but  it  is  plain 
that  their  share  in  it  was  insignificant  compared  to  Midian. 


222  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

It  was  a  Midianitish  woman  whose  shameless  act  brought 
down  the  plague  on  the  camp;  the  Midianitish  women  were  es- 
pecially devoted  to  destruction  by  Moses  /"Numb.  xxv.  16-18; 
xxxi.  16);  and  it  was  upon  Midian  that  the  vengeance  was 
taken."— ^;;////^'^  Bible  Did.,  Vol.  III.,  p.  1981.  The  Midian- 
ites  seemed  to  have  carried  this  licentious  worship  far  beyond 
where  the  Moabites  carried  it.  The  male  infants  slain  were 
taken  to  the  bosom  of  God.  Thus,  their  being  slain  was  a 
blessing;  for  had  they  been  left  to  grow  up,  they  would  have 
followed  the  degradation  and  ruin  of  their  fathers.  Of  these 
saved  females,  Keil  well  says:  "The  young  maidens  were 
reserved  to  be  employed  as  servants,  or,  in  case  they  became 
proselytes,  to  be  married."  Of  the  slain:  "All  the  females 
were  put  to  death  who  might  possibly  have  engaged  in  the 
licentious  worship  of  Peor,  so  that  the  Israelites  might  be  re- 
served from  contamination  by  that  abominable  idolatry." — 
Keil  on  Numb.  xxv.  1-3,  quoted  in  Halley's  Alleged  Discrep., 
p.  255.  (The  reader  will  remember  the  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion in  the  second  chapter  of  this  book.  Don't  forget  the 
infidels'  doctrine  upon  virtue  and  women,  as  I  have  shown 
it.)     See  "8"  on  extirpation  of  the  Canaanites. 

3.    HOSEA  COMMANDED  TO  TAKE  "A  WIFE  OF  WHOREDOMS." 

— Hosea  i.  2. 

a.  Remember  the  purity  of  the  law,  etc.,  and  the  rules  of 
interpretation  at  close  of  first  chapter. 

b.  Delitzsch  takes  the  prophet  as  meaning  simply  "internal 
events;  /.  e.,  as  merely  carried  out  in  that  inward  and  spirit- 
ual intuition  in  which  the  word  of  God  was  addressed  to 
him."  "In  this  view  concur  Bleek,  Davidson,  Hengstenberg, 
Kimchi,  Knobel."  {^Bleek's  Introd.  io  Old  Test.,  Vol  II.,  p. 
124;  Davidsoiis  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  Vol.  HI,  p.  237 — re- 
ferred to  in  Hallefs  Alleged  Discrep.,  p.  255.]  The  Chaldee 
Paraphrase,  several  rabbins,  the  school  of  Origen,  Junius,  and 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED.  223 

''the  balk  of  modern  commentators,"  substantially  agree  with 
Delitzsch. — Smith's  Bible  Diet,  Vol.  II.,  p.  1095. 

c.  Idolatry  or  spiritual  whoredom  may  be  meant.  The  spir- 
itual pollution  of  idolatry  is  often  set  forth  in  both  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testaments  by  such  expressions.  The  same 
Hebrew  noun*  occurs  in  Nahum  iii.  4;  Hosea  ii.  2,  4;  iv. 
12;  V.  4,  and  in  many  other  places,  for  idolatry.  Thus  we 
see  the  frequent  use  of  the  word,  in  its  various  forms,  is  for 
spiritual  fornication.  So  it  may  mean  that  of  that  idolatrous 
people  Hosea  was  commanded  to  take  a  wife.  Another  ex- 
planation by  a  skeptic,  Prof.  Robertson  Smith,  is  worthy  of 
consideration:  ''The  English  version  of  Hosea  iii.  does  not 
clearly  express  the  prophet's  thought.  Hosea' s  wife  had  de- 
serted him  for  a  stranger.  But  though  she  is  thus  'in  love 
with  a  paramour,  and  unfaithful,'  his  love  follows  her  and  he 
buys  her  back  out  of  the  servile  condition  into  which  she  had 
fallen.  She  is  brought  back  from  shame  and  servitude,  but 
not  to  the  privilege  of  a  wife.  She  must  sit  alone  by  her  hus- 
band, reserved  for  him,  but  not  to  the  relations  of  a  wife. 
So  Jehovah  will  deal  with  Israel." 

4.  Compelling  marriage  of  a  brother  to  his  deceased 
brother's  wife.  (Deut.  xxv.  5-10.)  a.  This  was  an  an- 
cient and  general  custom,  long  before  Moses'  time. — Gen. 
xxxviii.  8;  Burkhardfs  Notes,  Vol  I,  pp.  112,  113;  Kelts 
Archeol.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  66— in  Sfnith's  Bible  Diet.,  Vol.  Ill,  p. 
1800.  b.  Moses  wisely  regulated  it.  In  the  ceremony  by 
which  a  brother  was  released  from  marrying  his  brother's 
widow,  Moses  provided  a  way  to  prevent  marriage  without 
love.  The  spitting  "in  his  face"  may  be  rendered,  in  presence 
of  or  before.  "The  Hebrew,"  says  Gesenius,  "means  in 
front  of  or  before."— 6^^j.  Heb.  Lex.,  p.  853.    So  in  Ezekiel, 

*  D^^^^t — zenunim. 


224  OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

"before  (same  Hebrew*  word  for  'in  the  face')  the  wall." — 
Ezek.  xlii.  12.  So  the  Talmudists  explain  it.  (SmiVi's  Bible 
Did.,  Vol.  III.,  p.  1799.)  The  reason  for  this  ancient  or 
Levirate  custom  is  unknown.  Some  suppose  it  was  to  per- 
petuate a  name;  some,  to  retain  the  property  in  the  family, 
etc.  c.  The  brother  who  married  his  deceased  brother's  wife 
must  be  single.  This  is  implied  in  the  tv/o  brothers  dwelling 
''together"  (verse  5) — the  unmarried  brother  finding  a  home 
with  his  married  brother.  The  Pharisees  all  understood  that 
in  order  to  take  his  deceased  brother's  wife,  the  surviving 
brother  must  be  single.  See  Matt.  xxii.  24-28.  Instead  of 
this  encouraging  polygamy,  as  Underwood  claims,  it  is  clearly 
against  it;  for,  if  it  had  encouraged  polygamy,  aud  polygamy 
had  been  the  law  and  custom  of  the  Old  Testament,  this  law 
would  have  to  read,  "The  wives  of  the  dead;"  "take  them  unto 
him  to  wife;"  "the  fijst-born  they  bear;"  "let  his  brother's 
wives  go  up  to  the  gate;"  "and  say.  Our  husband's  brother;" 
"I  like  not  to  take  them;"  "then  shall  his  brother's  wives 
come  unto  him  in  the  presence  ot  the  elders,"  etc.  Moses, 
then,  did  not  made  this  law;  but  he  provided  away  to  release 
the  living  brother  from  marrying  his  deceased  brother's  wife 
if  he  did  not  love  her,  and,  at  the  same  time,  condemned 
polygamy  in  providing  for  marriage  to  only  one  wife. 

5.  "Abraham's  MARRIAGE  TO  HIS  sister." — Gen.  xii.  11; 
XX.  12.  "This  was  true;  probably  in  the  same  sense  that 
Lot,  Abraham's  nephew,  is  called  his  brother  (Gen.  xiv.  14), 
being  his  brother's  son ;  for  that  she  was  not  the  daughter  of 
Terah,  Abraham's  father,  is  evident  from  Gen.  xi.  31,  where 
she  is  called  daughter-in-law.  It  has  been  generally  supposed, 
and  with  great  probability,  that  Sarai  was  the  same  as  Iscah 
(Gen.  xi.  29),  and  was,  therefore  (by  our  way  of  reckoning), 


OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  225 

the  half-niece  of  Abraham." — Gen.,  by  T.  J.  Conaiit,  D.  D., 
/.  55;  also,  Delitzsch  Com.  To  this  agree  common  Jewish 
tradition,  Jerome,  Josephus — Ant.,  b.  i.,  ch.  6,  sec.  5.  What 
can  we  think  of  the  reliability  of  such  men  as  Underwood 
who  make  Sarai  out  Abraham's  "sister,"  as  we  use  the  term 
sister,  when  the  record  unequivocally  shows  she  was  not? 
Even  if  he  had  married  his  sister,  the  Bible  does  not  approve 
his  doing  so.  Prof  Robertson  Smith,  a  skeptic,  says:  "For- 
bidden marriages,  including  that  with  a  father's  wife,  seem  to 
have  been  practiced  pretty  openly  in  Rome  and  Syria  down 
to  the  fifth  Christian  century." — Old  Testament  in  Jewish  Ch., 
p.  68 — Seaside  Library  edition.  See  Lev.  xviii. ,  where  all  un- 
righteous marriages  are  forbidden. 

6.  Lot  and  his  daughters'  incestuous  act. — The  ac- 
count of  this  shows  the  Bible  a  pure  book.  a.  The  conduct 
of  his  daughters  shows  the  fearful  influence  of  vice,  of  raising 
children  under  bad  influences,  such  as  were  in  Sodom,  b.  It 
proves  that  the  daughters  knew  God  condemned  it,  and  that 
their  father  would  not  approve  of  so  heinous  an  act  when 
sober,  c.  It  shows  the  danger  of  using  intoxicating  drinks  as 
a  beverage.  Their  lather  did  not  mean  to  become  intoxicated; 
but  moderate  drinking  became  the  occasion  of  his  intoxica- 
tion. So  intoxication  leads  to  other  evils.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment records  this  as  a  warning. 

7.  The  LAWLESSNESS   RECORDED  IN   JUDGES,  ESPECIALLY  IN 

CHAPTERS  XIX.,  XX.,  XXI. — a.  We  have  seen  that  this  law- 
lessness, everything  wrong,  is  condemned  by  the  Jewish  law, ' 
etc.  (Remember  the  rules  of  interpretation  found  in  Chapter 
11.  of  this  book.)  b.  Especially  is  this  lawlessness  condemned 
by  the  last  verse  of  Judges:  "And  in  those  days  there  was  no 
king  in  Israel :  every  man  did  that  which  was  right  (not  gov- 
erned by  law)  in  his  ow7i  eyes."  — Judges  xxi.  25.  The  book 
teaches  the  fearful  results  of  departing  from  God — of  depart- 


2  26  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

ing  from  the  Bible.  This  people  of  Judges,  like  many  now, 
"outgrew  the  Bible."  They  did  what  Franklin  urged  Tom 
Paine  not  to  do — overthrew  the  influence  of  the  Bible;  "un- 
chained the  tiger"  of  human  passion. 

8.  Extirpation  of  the  Canaanites. — Deut.  xx.  16-18. 
(Remember  the  rules  of  interpretation  in  Chapter  II. ;  the 
purity  of  the  law  and  kindness  to  enemies,  shown  in  Chapter 
X.  of  this  book.)  a.  To  other  nations  the  Jews  were  to  offer 
conditions  of  peace.  See  Josephus'  A?tiiq.  of  Jews,  b.  4,  ch. 
8,  sec.  41.  b.  With  other  nations,  their  wars  were  designed 
to  be  only  in  self-defense.  ''May  you  be  laborious,  etc.,  and 
thereby  possess  and  inherit  the  land  without  wars." — -Josephus^ 
Antiq.,  b.  4,  ch.  8,  sec.  41.  Except  the  Canaanites  and  Mid- 
ianites,  the  Jews  were  generally  peaceful  with  all  nations; 
sometimes  too  peaceful.  Had  the  Jews  been  a  little  less  in- 
timate with  other  nations,  they  would  not  have  so  often  fallen 
into  idolatry.  Though  Deut.  xx.  is  against  only  the  Canaan- 
ites, we  learn  from  Josephus  that  verses  10  and  11  were  ap- 
plicable to  all  their  wars.  The  other  verses  could  have 
application  to  only  the  Canaanites.  c.  That  the  unusual 
severity  towards  these  nations  was  just  is  clear  from  several 
considerations.  (The  same  apply  to  the  Midianites.)  First. 
They  were  extremely  wicked.  They,  as  a  people,  burned 
their  children  in  honor  of  their  gods.  Lev.  xviii.  21.  As 
a  people,  they  practiced  sodomy,  bestiality,  and  all  loath- 
some vices.  Lev.  xviii.  22,  24;  xx.  3.  Such  was  their 
unmitigated  depravity,  that  the  land  is  represented  as  "vom- 
iting out  her  inhabitants,"  and  "spewing  them  forth,  as  the 
stomach  disgorges  a  deadly  poison." — Lev.  xviii.  25,  27-30. 
God  cut  them  off  on  account  of  these  loathsome  vices.  Sec- 
ond. They  were  cut  off  on  account  of  their  evil  influences. 
The  above  texts  give  this  as  the  reason  for  cutting  off  these 
nations,     {a)  For  this  reason,  no  "covenant"  or  marriage 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  227 

was  permitted  to  be  made  with  them.  Deut.  vii.  1-4.  {b) 
The  wisdom  of  prohibiting  all  friendly  relations  to  these  peo- 
ples— for  excepting  them — is  shown  from  the  disastrous  con- 
sequences of  the  Israelites  with  the  Moabites  and  Midian- 
ites.  Numb.  xxv.  1-9.  To  live  among  these  beastly  people 
without  being  defiled  by  them  was  utterly  impossible.  For 
this  reason,  it  was  said:  "But  of  the  cities  of  these  people, 
which  the  Lord  God  doth  give  thee  for  an  inheritance  {where 
you  are  to  live~),  thou  shalt  save  nothing  alive  that  breatheth :  .  . 
.  .  that  they  teach  you  not  to  do  after  their  abominations." — 
Deut.  XX.  16,  18.  (e)  The  wisdom  of  commanding  such  de- 
struction also  appears  in  the  consequences  of  its  disobedence. 
Read  Judges  ii.  1-3;  iii.  1-7.  For  both  Israel  and  these 
doomed  tribes  this  destruction  was  better;  it  saved  Israel  from 
evil,  and  saved  countless  generations  of  the  others  from  being 
born  into  such  abominable  life  and  doom.  Third.  God  com- 
manded this  destruction.  Harless  expresses  a  most  certain 
fact:  " To  punish  in  the  highest  degrees,  ....  carries  out 
the  divine  power  of  life  and  death  in  capital  punishment. 
Nowhere  in  the  New  Testament  do  we  find  that  abrogated 
which  on  this  point — /.  e.,  capital  punishment — was  recognized 
as  right  under  the  Old.  And  I  can  understand,  in  no  other 
than  the  most  literal  sense,  what  the  apostle  says,  'That  the 
ruler  bears  not  the  sword  in  vain'  "  (Rom.  xiii.  4). — Sys.  Chr. 
Eth.^  p.  409.  If  we  could  see  no  reason  for  such  command, 
we  know  from  his  laws,  nature,  etc.,  that  it  was  right — the 
same  is  true  of  all  else  to  which  objection  is  made.  See  Gen. 
xviii.  25.  (See  rules  of  interpretation  in  Chapter  II.)  Fourth. 
As  the  Moral  Ruler  of  the  world,  as  its  Creator,  he  has  the 
right  to  command  anything  that  is  right,  however  severe. 
Ps.  vii.  8;  ix.  8;  1.  4;  xcvi.  10;  i  Sam.  ii.  10;  Ps.  xcvi.  13. 
[Please  read  these  Scriptures  to  see  that  the  Lord  judges 
righteously. ^      Fifth.  As  instruments  in  the  execution  of  the 


22  8  OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

judicial  extermination  of  these  nations,  the  Israelites  were  no 
more  "murderers"  than  the  officer  who  executes  a  criminal  is 
a  murderer.  Both  executions  are  executions  by  authority  and 
command  o(  government:  the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites 
is  by  authority  of  the  divine  government;  the  execution  of 
the  ''criminal"  is  by  authority  of  the  earthly  government. 
Sixth.  The  execution  of  this  divine  command  was  in  no  sense 
an  example  or  authority  for  such  treatment  of  other  nations. 
{a)  Neither  did  the  Jews  nor  any  candid  Biblical  scholar  ever 
understand  it  to  be  an  example.  (Jf)  I  have  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that  other  Jewish  wars  (/.  e.,  authorized  wars)  were 
only  in  self-defense;  and  that  the  Jews  were  a  peaceful  peo- 
ple. See  Numb.  xxi.  21-35;  J^^*  x^^*  2.  (c)  When  the 
temple  was  to  be  built — prefiguring  the  peaceful  nature  of 
Christ's  kingdom — God  said  to  David,  "Thou  shalt  not  build 
a  house  for  my  name :  because  thou  hast  been  a  man  of  war, 
and  hast  shed  blood." — i  Chron.  xxviii.  3;  xxii.  8,  9.  Not 
that  these  wars  are  therein  condemned,  but  that  war  is  con- 
demned as  a  normal  or  permanent  state  of  things,  (d)  The 
Old  Testament  taught  Israel  to  look  upon  war  as  wrong ;  and 
to  look  for  an  age  of  peace.  Compare  2  Chron.  xvi.  9;  Ps. 
Iv.  21;  Ixviii.  30;  cxx.  7;  cxl.  2;  Isa.  ii.  4,  5;  Ps.  xxxvii. 
11;  Ixxii.  3;  cxlvii.  14;  Isa.  ix.  6;  Iv.  12;  Ix.  17,  18;  Zech. 
viii.  16,  17,  19;  ix.  10,  II.  No  one  who  reads  the  chapter 
of  this  book  on  relation  to  enemies;  who  considers  the  Old 
Testament  voice  against  cruelty  and  homicide,  and  who  care- 
fully reads  the  Scriptures  here  referred  to,  can  reasonably 
deny  that  the  Jews  were  taught  peace— the  golden  rule  — with 
all,  except  the  Canaanites  and  Midianites.  War  with  them, 
as  with  us,  was  clearly  a  grievous  necessity.  Seventh.  The 
execution  of  this  command  was  an  impressive  lesson  on  the 
"exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin"  and  the  majesty  and  justice  of 
the  moral  law — an  inexpressible  blessing  to  the  race. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  229 

"What  could  be  conceived  so  thoroughly  fitted  to  implant 
an  abiding  conviction  of  the  evil  of  idolatry  and  its  foul  abomin- 
ations— to  convert  the  abhorrence  of  these  into  a  national,  per- 
manent characteristic,  as  their  being  obliged  to  enter  on  their 
settled  inheritance  by  a  terrible  infliction  of  judgment  upon 
its  former  occupants,  for  polluting  it  with  such  enormities  ? 
Thus  the  very  foundations  of  their  national  existence  raised  a 
solemn  warning  against  defection  from  the  pure  worship  of 
God ;  and  the  visitation  of  wrath  against  the  ungodliness  of 
men  accomplished  by  their  own  hands,  and  interwoven  with 
the  records  of  their  history  at  its  most  eventful  period,  stood 
as  a  perpetual  witness  against  them,  if  they  should  ever  turn 
aside  to  folly.  Happy  had  it  been  for  them  if  they  had  been 
as  careful  to  remember  the  lesson,  as  God  was  to  have  it  suit- 
ably impressed  upon  their  minds." — Fairbairn^s  Typology,  Vol. 
IL,  pp.  465-471.  ''The  language  in  which  Mr.  Carlyle 
{Cromiveirs  Letters,  Vol.  II. ,  p.  53)  characterizes  the  severe 
and  bloody  measures  employed  by  Cromwell  against  the  Irish 
insurgents,  may  be  applied  to  the  Israelites  in  executing  the 
divine  commission  against  the  Canaanites:  'An  armed  soldier, 
solemnly  conscious  to  himself  that  he  is  a  soldier  of  God,  the 
Just — a  consciousness  which  it  well  beseems  all  soldiers,  and 
all  men,  to  have  always;  armed  soldier,  terrible  as  death, 
relentless  as  doom ;  doing  God's  judgments  on  the  enemies  of 
God!  It  is  a  phenomenon  not  of  joyful  nature;  no,  but 
awful;  to  be  looked  at  with  pious  terror  and  awe.'  Viewing 
the  Israelites  as  the  consciously  commissioned  ministers  of 
heaven's  vengeance  upon  an  utterly  corrupt  and  imbruted 
race,  their  case  isiifted  completely  out  of  the  common  range 
of  warfare  and  becomes  entirely  unique,  no  longer  to  be  judged 
by  the  ordinary  ethical  standards.  A  late  author,  who  could 
not  be  charged  with  fanaticism — Dr.  Thomas  Arnold  (^Ser.  4 
on  '  Wars  of  Israelites' ;  see  also  Stanley' s  Jewish  Ch.,  Part  i, 


230  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

Lect.  1 1) — has  the  following  defense  of  the  Israelites  and  of 
their  warfare  of  extermination:  'And  if  we  are  inclined  to 
think  God  dealt  hardly  with  the  people  of  Canaan  in  com- 
manding them  to  be  so  utterly  destroyed,  let  us  but  think 
what  might  have  been  our  fate,  and  the  fate  of  every  other 
nation  under  heaven,  at  this  hour,  had  the  sword  of  the  Is- 
raelites done  its  work  more  sparingly.  Even  as  it  was,  the 
small  portion  of  thje  Canaanites  who  were  left,  and  the  nations 
around  them,  so  tempted  the  Israelites  by  their  idolatrous 
practices,  that  we  read  continually  of  the  whole  people  of 
God  turning  away  from  his  service.  But  had  the  heathen 
lived  in  the  land  in  equal  numbers,  and,  still  more,  had  they 
intermarried  largely  with  the  Israelites,  how  was  it  possible, 
humanly  speaking,  that  any  sparks  of  the  light  of  God's  truth 

should  have  survived  to  the  coming  of  Christ The 

whole  earth  would  have  been  sunk  in  darkness;  and  if  Mes- 
siah had  come,  he  would  not  have  found  one  single  ear  pre- 
pared to  listen  to  his  doctrine,  nor  one  single  heart  that  longed 
in  secret  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  this  was  not  to  be ; 
and,  therefore,  the  nations  of  Canaan  were  to  be  cut  off  ut- 
terly. The  Israelites'  sword,  in  its  bloodiest  executions, 
wrought  a  work  of  mercy  for  all  the  countries  of  the  earth 

to  the  very  end  of  the  world In  these  contests 

on  the  fate  of  one  of  these  nations  of  Palestine,  the  happiness 
of  the  whole  human  race  depended.  The  Israelites  fought 
not  for  themselves  only,  but  for  us.  Whatever  were  the  faults 
of  Jephthah  or  of  Samson,  never  yet  were  any  men  engaged 

in  a  cause  more  important  to  the  world's  welfare 

Still  they  did  God's  work;  still  they  preserved  unhurt  the 
seed  of  eternal  life,  and  were  the  ministers  of  blessing  to  all 
other  nations,  even  though  they  themselves  failed  to  enjoy 
it. '  The  great  German  critic  (who  is  a  kind  of  a  rationalist- 
skeptic),   treating  upon  this  topic  (^Hist.   Israel,  Vol.   II.,  p. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED  23 1 

237),  has  impressively  said :  '  It  is  an  eternal  necessity  that  a 
nation,  such  as  the  great  majority  of  the  Canaanites  then  were, 
sinking  deeper  and  deeper  into  a  slough  of  discord  and  moral 
perversity,  must  fall  before  a  people  roused  to  a  higher  life 
by  the  newly  wakened  energy  of  unanimous  trust  in  a  divine 
power.'  Dr.  Davidson  (not  'orthodox')  says  {Introd.  Old  Test., 
Vol.  I. ,  /.  444) :  '  In  a  certain  sense,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  a 
spirit  of  revenge,  casting  down  and  destroying  everything  op- 
posed to  the  progress  of  man's  education  in  the  knowledge  of 
the  Lord. ' ' '  — Alleged  Discrep. ,  pp.  267-270. 

Eighth,  (a)  The  destruction  of  these  nations  was  on  the 
same  principle  that  the  antediluvians,  {b)  the  Sodomites,  Pha- 
raoh and  his  hosts,  etc.,  were  destroyed,  {c)  They  were 
destroyed  on  the  same  principle  by  which  Divine  Providence 
has  always  destroyed  wicked  men  and  nations,  {d)  They  were 
destroyed  on  the  same  principle  by  which  the  wicked  will  be 
all  finally  cast  into  hell.  "It  is  appointed  unto  men  once 
to  die,  but  after  this  the  judgment."  ''For  we  must  all  ap- 
pear before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ;  that  every  one  may 
receive  the  things  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he  hath 
done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad."— Heb.  ix.  27;  2  Cor.  v. 
10.  This  will  all  be  done  in  righteousness— ''Btc2i\isQ  he  hath 
appointed  a  day  in  the  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  right- 
eousness.''— Acts  xvii.  31.  Let  the  reader  learn  from  the 
awful  doom  of  these  nations  that  a  more  awful  doom  awaits 
him  if  he  dies  in  unbehef.  Read  what  he  who  loved  as 
never  man  loved  says. — Matt.  vii.  19-27;  Mark  xvi.  15,  16; 
Rev.  XX.  11-15. 

9.  Children  slain  for  mocking  the  prophet.  2  Kings 
ii.  23,  24.  a.  As  an  insult  to  an  ambassador  is  an  insult  to 
the  government  which  sent  him,  so  this  insult  to  Elisha  was 
an  insult  to  God  who  sent  him.  b.  An  insult  to  God  is  more 
heinous  than  an  insult  to  an  earthly  power,     c.   As  such,  it 


232  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

must  bring  greater  punishment  upon  the  insulting  party,  d. 
As  Elisha  had  no  power  to  cause  these  persons'  deaths,  God 
caused  it.  He  only  declared  the  curse  that  they  must  meet. 
e.  As  God  cursed  them,  it  was  done  in  righteousness.  (Re- 
member what  I  have  gone  over,  and  the  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion in  Chapter  II.)  /.  These  were  ''children"  of  the  age  of 
accountability.^  ''The  word  D^^J/J) — nearini — rendered  chil- 
dren in  Kings  may,  as  a  late  rationalistic  commentator  admits, 
denote  'a  youth  nearly  twenty  years  old.'  Gesenius  says  pre- 
cisely the  same;  adding  that  it  is  also  applied  to  'common  sol- 
diers,'just  as  we  in  English  style  them  'boys,'  the  'boys  in 
blue.'  Fuerst  gives,  among  other  definitions,  a  person  who 
is  twenty  years  of  age,  a  youth,  a  young  prophet ;  generally, 
a  servant  of  any  kind,  a  young  warrior.  The  same  combina- 
tion of  words  as  above — naar  quatan—'is  applied  to  Solomon 
after  he  began  to  reign,  at  some  twenty  years  of  age.  Krum- 
macher  and  Cassel  translate  the  expression  in  the  text,  'young 
people.'  Hence,  the  theory  that  these  young  scoffers  were 
really  '  little  children'  at  their  play,  is  untenable.  They  were 
old  enough  and  depraved  enough  to  merit  the  terrible  fate 
which  overtook  them." — Alleged  Discrep.,  p.  2  7o.t  See  2 
Sam.  xvii.  8;  Prov.  xvii.  12;  Rosea  xiii.  8;  i  Sam.  xvii. 
34;  Lam.  iii.  10;  Amos  v.  19,  for  how  dangerous  these  bears 
were  regarded.     Adam  Clarke  thinks  these  may  have  been 

*  The  same  word  is  used,  in  feminine  form,  in  2  Kings  v.  2,  with  the 
Hebrew  little — ?tDD — guaian—iox  one  old  enough  for  a  waiter  upon 

"Naman's  wife."  And  in  Gen.  xix.  ii  the  same  word,  for  "little,"  is 
used  to  designate  a  part  of  the  lawless  young  men;  so  used  in  i  Sam. 
,'xx.  35;   I    Kings  xi.  17.     The  same — T^T)  *^V'^ — Hebrew  phrase  is 

applied  to  Hadad,  who  could  flee  and  marry,  i  Kings  xi.  19.  It  is 
certain  that  the  Hebrew  should  be  rendered  so  as  to  indicate  those 
nearly  or  fully  grown. 

t  \\yD  ^V^     naar  quatan — to  which  Halley  refers,  designates  Solo- 
mon as  young,  feeling  his  weakness,     (i  Kings  iii.  7.) 


OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  233 

bears  whose  whelps  these  young  fellows  had  just  robbed,  and 
which,  "tracing  the  footsteps  of  the  murderers  of  their  young, 
thus  came  upon  them  in  the  midst  of  their  insults,  God's  prov- 
idence ordering  these  occurrences;  ....  justice  guided 
them  to  the  spot  to  punish  the  iniquity  that  had  been  just 
committed." — Com.^  in  loco.  g.  Scoffing  at  the  good  is  a 
heinous  sin.  A  man  may  scoff  at  everything  good.  Virtue 
may  be  scoffed  down  and  vice  praised  up.  Webster  defines 
scoff,  "to  show  insolent  ridicule."  Such  was  the  licentious 
infidel  court  of  Charles  the  Second. 

**  Truth  from  his  lips  prevailed  with  double  sway, 
And  fools  who  came  to  scoff,  remained  to  pray." 

— Goldsmith. 

A  more  terrible  doom  than  these  met  awaits  all  scoffers  at 
God's  judgment,  h.  Much  of  what  is  said  in  justification  of 
the  destruction  of  the  Canaanites,  will  apply  to  the  case  of 
these  young  fellows  who  were  slain  by  the  bears. 

10.  Slaying  of  seducers  to  idolatry.  Deut.  xiii.  6-9. 
a.  This  idolatry  was  a  licentious,  beastly  and  cruel  worship. 
(See  justification  of  extermination  of  the  Canaanites  in  this 
chapter  of  this  book.)  Such  seduction  meant  seduction  to 
take  their  own  children's  lives  to  offer  as  a  sacrifice,  to  pros- 
titute their  women,  etc.,  to  "lie  with  beasts."  Lev.  xviii. 
21-24;  XX.  7-21;  xviii.  25,  .28;  Deut.  vii.  1-4.  How  any 
one  who  is  not  in  sympathy  with  these  abominations,  can 
regard  them  so  light  a  thing  as  to  call  for  cursing  upon  God 
for  pronouncing  such  penalties  upon  those  who  should  seduce 
others  into  them,  I  leave  others  to  decide,  b.  Such  seduc- 
tion was  high  treason.  Michaelis  says  (^Com.  Laws  of  Moses, 
Vol.  IV.,  p.  11):  "As  the  true  God  was  the  civil  legislator 
of  the  people  of  Israel,  and  accepted  by  them  as  their  King, 
idolatry  was  a  crime  against  the  State,  and  therefore  just  as 


234  OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

deservedly  punished  with  death  as  high  treason  is  with  us. 
Whoever  worshiped  strange  gods  shook,  at  the  same  time, 
the  whole  fabric  of  the  laws,  and  rebelled  against  him  in 
whose  name  the  government  was  carried  on."  Jahn  says 
i^Hist.  Heb.  Com7nonwealih,  p.  19):  ''Whoever  in  the  Hebrew 
nation,  over  which  Jehovah  was  King,  worshiped  another 
god,  or  practiced  any  superstitions,  by  this  very  act  renounced 
his  allegiance  to  his  King  and  deserted  to  another.  He  com- 
mitted high  treason,  and  was  properly  considered  a  public 
criminal.  Whoever  incited  others  to  idolatry  incited  them  to 
rebellion,  and  was  a  mover  of  sedition.  Therefore,  death  was 
justly  awarded  as  the  punishment  of  idolatry,  and  its  kindred 
arts,  magic,  necromancy  and  soothsaying;  and  also  of  incit- 
ing to  idolatry." — Alleged  Discrep.,  p.  226.  Prof.  Robertson 
Smith — in  fact,  a  skeptic — says  :  ''It  is  a  crime,  analagous  to 
treason,  to  depart  from  him  and  sacrifice  to  other  gods.  As 
the  Lord  of  Israel  and  Israel's  land,  the  Giver  of  all  good 
gifts  to  his  people,  he  has  a  manifest  claim  on  Israel's  hom- 
age; and  receives  at  their  hands  such  dues  as  their  neighbors 
paid  to  their  gods;  such  dues  as  a  king  receives  from  his  peo- 
ple" I  Sam.  viii.  15,  17. — H.  Smith' s  Led.  on  the  Old  Test. 
in  Jewish  Ch.,  p.  64 — edition  Seaside  Library.  The  slaying 
of  Baal's  prophets  (i  Kings  xviii.  40)  comes  under  this  head. 
Keil  says:  "To  infer  from  this  act  of  Elijah's  (equally 
condemned  by  the  law  which  makes  idolatry  and  seduc- 
tion to  idolatry  of  this  nature  and  circumstance  a  high 
crime)  the  right  to  institute  a  bloody  persecution  of  heretics, 
would  .  .  .  indicate  a  complete  oversight  of  the  dif- 
ference between  heathen  idolaters  and  Christian  heretics." 
Rawlinson  says:  "Elijah's  act  is  to  be  justified  by  the  express 
command  of  the  law,  that  the  idolatrous  Israelites  were  to  be 
put  to  death ;  and  by  the  right  of  a  prophet  under  the  theoc- 
racy to  step  in  and  execute  the  law  when  the  king  failed  to 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  235 

do  his  duty." — Alleged  Discrep.^p.  265.  c.  Under  the  new 
dispensation,  eternal  death  awaits  all  idolaters  and  all  who 
seduce  others  from  the  truth.  God  reserves  this  for  the  judg- 
ment.    See  Matt,  xviii.  6;   i  Pet.  iv.  3;  Rev.  xxi.  8;  xxii.  15. 

II.  Slaying  of  Saul's  bloody  house.  2  Sam.  xxi.  1-9. 
The  law  forbidding  the  punishment  of  children  for  their  pa- 
rents' sins,  leaves  us  to  conclude  that  these  sons  were  partic- 
ipants in  the  crime  for  which  they  were  slain.  (See  rules  at 
close  of  Chapter  II.  of  this  book.)  Read  Deut.  xxiv.  16;  2 
Kings  xiv.  5,  6. 

Halley  says:  "In  2  Sam.  xxi.  i  the  designation,  Saul's 
^bloody  house,^  intimates  strongly  that  the  men  whom  a  recent 
writer  deplores  as  'innocent  grandchildren,'  were  really  par- 
ticipants in  the  crime  of  their  departed  progenitor.  He  had 
gone  beyond  the  reach  of  earthly  justice;  hence,  the  penalty 
fell  upon  his  surviving  partners  in  treachery  and  blood.  David 
Kimchi  (^Mennasseh  Ben  Israel! s  Coiiciliator,  Vol.  I.,  p.  167) 
tentatively,  and  Dr.  Jahn  (^Hist.  Heb.  Commonwealth,  p.  43) 
confidently,  propose  this  very  reasonable  explanation  of  the 
case." — Alleged  Discrep.,  p.  241.  77ie  slaying 0/  Ac han' s fam- 
ily is  on  the  same  pri?iciple.  Josh.  vii.  24.  The  ''sons  and 
daughters"  of  Achan  rejoiced  in  his  sin,  helped  him  conceal 
his  crime.  The  slaying  of  A hab' s  softs  and  house,  the  slaying  of 
the  house  of  Ahaziah,  were  doubtless  on  the  same  principle — 
all  the  slain  participants  in  the  crime.  2  Kings  x.  Though 
it  seems  that  Jehu  carried  the  matter  too  far — so  as  to  violate 
the  law  of  God.  See  Hosea  i.  4.  i  Sam.  xv.  1-3  is  explained 
partly  as  these  cases,  and  partly  as  the  cases  of  the  Canaanites 
and  Midianites. 

These  cases — and  any  others  of  their  class — teach  that  God 
will  surely  punish  sin.  They  are  fearful  vindications  of  the  ma- 
jesty of  the  law.     AxQyou  violating  God's  law  ? 

While  vindicating  the  Old  Testament  punishment  of  sin, 


236  OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

the  subject  requires  a  notice  of  infidel  history  on  bloodshed 
— not  punishment  of  sin.  When  infidels  reigned,  in  the  eight- 
eenth century,  in  France,  in  a  short  time  they  murdered,  in 
cold  blood,  without  any  justification,  says  Thiers,  1,022,351. 
Of  these,  15,000  were  inoffensive  women;  22,000  priests; 
1,120  died  of  premature  child-birth;  3,400  in  child-birth,  and 
348  from  grief.  See  Thiers'  Hist.  French  Rev..,  Vol.  III.., p. 
475.  Allison  says  of  these  infidel  doings:  "Women  big  with 
child ;  infants  eight,  nine  and  ten  years  of  age,  were  thrown 
together  into  the  stream,  on  the  sides  of  which  men  armed 
with  sabres  were  placed  to  cut  off  their  hands,  if  the  waves 
should  throw  them  undrowned  upon  the  shore.  The  citizens 
with  loud  shrieks  implored  the  lives  of  their  little  innocents, 
and  numbers  of  them  offered  to  adopt  them  as  their  own;  but 
though  a  few  were  granted  to  their  urgent  entreaty,  the  greater 
part  were  doomed  to  destruction.  .  .  .  The  executioner 
died  two  or  three  days  after  with  horror  at  what  he  himself 
had  done."  "Two  persons  of  different  sexes,  generally  an 
old  man  and  an  old  woman,  or  a  young  man  and  a  young 
woman,*  bereft  of  every  species  of  dress,  were  bound  to- 
gether, and  being  left  in  torture  in  that  situation  for  half  an 

hour,  were  thrown  into  the  river Such  was  the 

quantity  of  corpses  accumulated  in  the  Loire,  that  the  water 
of  the  river  was  infected  so  as  to  render  an  ordinance  forbid- 
ding the  use  of  it  by  the  inhabitants;  and  the  mariners  when 
they  heaved  their  anchors  frequently  brought  up  boats  charged 
with  corpses.  Birds  of  prey  flocked  to  the  shores  and  fed 
on  human  flesh,  while  the  very  fish  became  so  poisonous  as 
to  induce  the  order  of  the  municipality  of  Nantes  prohibiting 
them  from  being  taken  by  the  fishermen."  "People  dared 
not  express  any  opinion.      They  were  afraid  to  visit  their 

*  This  by  those  who  were  horrified  at  the  Old  Testament  treatment 
of  women,  etcl 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  237 

friends,  lest  they  might  be  compromised  with  them  and  lose 
liberty,  and  even  Hfe."  Thiers  says:  ''Every  tenth  day  a 
revolutionary  leader  ascended  the  pulpit  and  preached  athe- 
ism to  the  bewildered  audience."  They  enthroned  a  harlot 
to  represent  their  god.  Wilson  says:  ''The  churches  were 
closed  [this  is  now  an  infidel  wish],  religion  everywhere  aban- 
doned, and  on  all  the  public  cemeteries  was  placed  the  in- 
scription, 'Death  is  an  eternal  sleep.'"  Buchner,  a  leading 
German  infidel,  says:  "Materialism  [infidelity]  of  the  eight- 
eenth century  found  its  outward  expression  [the  horrors  just 
mentioned]  in  the  French  Revolution." — Hist.  Mater. ^ pp.  lo, 
II.  For  a  faithful  and  fuller  view  of  this  infidel  "Reign  of 
Terror,"  see  Thiers^  Hist.  French  Rev.,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  224-226, 
475;  Allisons  Hist.  Europe,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  271,  272;  Abbot's  Hist. 
Rev.,  p.  47,  etc.;  Wilson's  Out.  Hist.,  pp.  457,  844;  Carlyk's 
French  Rev.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  206;  May's  Const.  Hist.  Eng.,  Vol. 
II., p.  42;  Farrar's  Hist.  Free  Thought, pp.  189,  190;  White's 
Hist.  France,  p.  448;  Wuttke's  Eth.,  Vol.  I,  p.  322;  Shedd's 
Hist.  Ch.  Doc,  Vol.  I,  p.  218;  Le  Play's  Org.  of  Labor,  pp. 
108,  380,  381,  384,  386,  399,  400;  Burke,  Pitt,  etc.    This  is 

THE   ONLY  TIME  THAT  INFIDELS  EVER  HAD  ABSOLUTE  CONTROL 

OVER  ANY  GOVERNMENT ;  and  Mstory  fumtshes  no  such  an  /ter- 
rible ^^  control." 

Well  did  our  great  historian,  Bancroft,  say  of  infidelity : 
"  Her  garments  are  red  with  blood,  and  ruin  is  her  delight." 
— Hist,  of  United  States,  Vol.  V.,pp.  22,  24.  The  reader  will 
please  note  that  the  "Reign  of  Terror"  is  the  natural  off- 
spring, as  Buchner  avows,  of  th-Qiv principles,  shown  in  Chap- 
ter III.  of  this  book.  While  the  Old  Testament  never  took 
life  except  where  the  just  and  holy  law  required,  in  a  few 
weeks  these  infidels  murdered,  "in  cold  blood,''  over  one 
million  of  men,  women  and  children,  etc.  Yet  these  men 
talked  of  the  "cruelties,"  etc.,  of  the  Bible;  so  talk  those 


238  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

to-day  who  are  of  the  very  same  doctrines !  Let  the  'mass  of 
the  people  know  these  misrepresentations  of  the  best  book 
in  the  world;  and  who  make  them!  Make  them  /ace  their 
principles  and  history.  Give  them  something  else  to  do  than 
— as  Franklin  advised  Tom  Paine  to  not  do — to  * 'unchain  the 
tiger"  of  sin,  by  undermining  the  faith  of  the  people  in  the 
Bible. 

12.  The  Old  Testament  and  human  sacrifices. — Inas- 
much as  infidels  are  ever  charging  the  Bible  with  sanctioning 
human  sacrifices,  I  will  here  confute  the  charge.  They  rely 
on  Gen.  xxii.  2;  Joshua  vii.  24,  25;  Judges  xi.  30-40;  2  Sam. 
xxi.  8,  9,  14,  to  sustain  this  charge,  a.  The  law  forbids  hu- 
man sacrifice;  and  the  rules  of  interpretation,  therefore,  re- 
quire that  we  differently  interpret  these  Scriptures.  (See  rules 
of  interpretation  in  Chapter  II.  of  this  book.)  "And  thou 
shalt  not  let  any  of  thy  seed  pass  through  the  fire  to  Moloch." 
— Lev.  xviii.  21.  "Whosoever  he  be  of  the  children  of  Is- 
rael, or  of  the  strangers  that  sojourn  in  Israel,  that  giveth  any 
of  his  seed  unto  Moloch,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death." — 
Lev.  XX.  2;  2  Kings  xvi.  3;  xxi.  6;  xxiii.  10;  Jer.  xix.  5; 
Ezek.  XX.  30,  31;  xxiii.  36-39;  i  Kings  xi.  1-9;  Deut.  xviii. 
10;  2  Kings  xvii.  7;  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  6.  How  any  man,  who 
is  not  mad,  with  this  law  and  all  these  Scriptures  before  him, 
could  have  ever  charged  the  Bible  with  sanctioning  such  an 
abomination  as  human  sacrifices,  I  leave  others  to  discover. 
b.  I  have  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Old  Testament 
brands  all  taking  of  human  life,  except  by  accident  or  as  a 
penalty  for  crime,  as  murder,  to  be  wiped  out  by  the  death  of 
the  murderer.  Deut.  v.  17;  Exod.  xx.  13.  c.  The  things  to 
be  sacrificed  are  specifically  designated,  so  as  to  exclude  human 
and  all  improper  sacrifice.  See  Lev.  i.,  ii.,  iii.,  iv.,  v.,  vi., 
vii.,  xvi.,  xxiii.,  etc.,  etc. — all  the  Bible.  The  maxim  of  law, 
'■'■Expressio  unius  est  exclusio  alterius^^ — the  expression  of  one 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  239 

thing  is  the  exclusion  of  another— compels  us,  by  these  laws  of 
sacrifice,  to  exclude  human  sacrifices,  d.  The  ethical  nature  of 
Old  Testament  ceremonies,  sacrifices,  etc. ,  certainly  excludes 
human  sacrifices,  e.  ''As  to  the  case  of  Abraham  offering 
Isaac,  God's  design  was  not  to  secure  a  certain  outward  aci^ 
but  a  state  of  mind,  a  willingness  to"  obey  God;  and,  at 
the  same  time,  to  learn  him  a  lesson  of  trust,  to  teach  that 
God  often  leads  us  through  darkness,  where  we  can't  see  the 
lifjiy — even  where,  to  our  limited  minds,  all  is  contradiction, 
unreasonable,  etc.,  but  where  he  is  with  us  to  bring  all  out 
clear  as  the  noon-day.  Such  was  Job's  trial;  such  the  trial 
of  Jesus,  in  Matt.  iv.  To  undertake  this  teaching  where  we 
can  see  the  way  out,  the  whys  and  wherefores,  is  to  lead  us 
only  by  sight,  and  defeats  the  moral  lesson  and  discipline  in 
faith.     But,  thank  God,  he  is  ever  teaching : 

"Judge  not  the  Lord  h-^ feeble  sense, 
But  trust  him  for  his  grace ; 
Behind  z^  frowning  providence, 
He  hides  a  smiling  face."* 

''  'The  principle  of  this  great  trial,'  says  Dr.  Thomas  Arnold 
{Miscel  Works,  p.  150),  'was  the  same  which  has  been  appHed 
to  God's  servants  in  every  age — whether  they  were  willing  to 
part  with  what  they  loved  best  on  earth  when  God's  service 
called  for  it.'  Hengstenberg  says  {Genni7i-Pe7it,  Vol.  II., p. 
114):  'Verse  12  shows  that  satisfaction  was  rendered  to  the 
Lord's  command  when  the  spiritual  sacrifice  was  completed.' 
In  this  view  concur  Warburton,  Keil,  Lange,  Bush,  Murphy, 
Wordsworth."— Z««^^'^  Com.  on  Gen.,  pp.  79,  80.     So  also 

*  The  charge  that  the  Bible  sanctions  human  sacrifice  is  so  shame- 
fully and  inexcusably  false,  that,  no  doubt,  many  of  my  readers  are 
impatient  at  me  for  refuting  it,  and  regard  the  refutation  a  waste  of 
time.  In  this  they  may  be  right;  but  infidels  not  all  being  hopeless, 
I  do  this  for  their  benefit. 


240  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

Conant  (Gen.  xxii.),  Adam  Clarke  (Gen.  xxii.),  Kurtz  (Hist. 
Old  Cov.^  Vol.  I.,  p.  263),  etc.  Josephus  well  says:  "It  was 
not  out  of  a  desire  of  human  blood  that  he  was  commanded 
to  slay  his  son,  nor  was  he  willing  that  he  should  be  taken 
from  him  whom  he  had  made  his  father,  but  to  try  the  temper 
of  his  mind." — Antiq.^  b.  i,  ch.  13,  sec.  4. 

/.  The  slaughter  of  Achan's  "sons  and  daughters"  has 
been  noticed  in  point  "11"  of  this  chapter.  The  stoning  and 
burning  them  were  only  punishments  and  expressions  of  the 
detestation  of  sin  and  its  terrible  punishment.  See  Joshua 
vii.  15. 

g.  It  is  claimed  that  Lev.  xxvii.  28,  29  authorizes  human 
sacrifices.  But,  first^  our  rules  of  mterpretation,  at  close  of 
Chapter  II.  of  this  book — remembering  such  an  abomination 
is  so  often  condemned  in  the  Bible — compel  us  to  differently 
interpret  this  passage.  Second.  The  Hebrew  rendered  devote 
Cin — charem-'is  used  in  two  senses.  It  signifies  "to  con- 
secrate, to  devote  unto  God."  Then,  it  signifies  "to  devote 
to  destruction."  "In  the  exterminating  wars  against  the  Ca- 
naanites,  cities  were  often  thus  devoted;  and  these,  when 
taken,  were  razed  to  the  foundations,  and  the  inhabitants, 
both  man  and  beast,  utterly  destroyed;  so  as  to  prevent  them 
from  ever  being  redeemed  from  this  vow." — Ges.  Heb.  Lex., 
p.  345.  In  the  former  sense  of  the  word — in  verse  28 — cher- 
em — part  of  these  were  devoted;  in  the  latter  sense — verse 
29— part,  and  in  this  part  men  whom  Israel,  in  obedience  to 
the  Lord's  command,  had  devoted — chare?n — to  destruction. 
In  Joshua  vi.  17  chereni  is  rendered  "accursed;"  and,  in  the 
eighteenth  verse,  in  its  various  forms,  it  is  rendered  "ac- 
cursed" twice  and  "curse"  once.  In  Numb.  xxi.  3  cherem 
is  rendered  "destroyed" — speaking  of  the  Canaanites  "de- 
voted" to  destruction.     In  Exod.   xxii.   20,  we  have  DIH* 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  24 1 

word  rendered  devote,  meaning  to  destroy;  so,  also,  in  Numb, 
xxi.  2,  3;  Deut.  ii.  24;  iii.  6;  vii.  2;  xiii.  15;  xx.  17;  Joshua 
ii.  10;  vi.  21;  viii.  26;  x.  i,  35,  37,  39,  40;  xi.  11,  12,  20, 
21;  Judges  i.  17;  xxi.  11;  i  Sam.  xv.  3 — in  fact,  in  its  va- 
rious forms,  this  word  is  used  more  than  fifty  times  for  destroy. 
The  word  differs  from  the  other  Hebrew  words  for  destroy, 
in  that  it  carries  the  idea  of  destroying  as  a  religious  duty 
and  devotion.  Executing  God's  justice  on  these  wicked  men 
was  devotion  to  God.  Thus  we  see  this  devoted  of  men — 
D"lKn  fD  dn^  It^N — asher yacharaiti  min  haadam — ''which 

i,T  T  T     I  •;-  T :  T        V     : 

shall  be  devoted  of  men"  (Lev.  xxvii.  29),  means  "those  ac- 
cursed to  death."  Criminals  condemned  to  death,  and  those 
of  the  nations  to  be  destroyed,  come  under  this  irredeemable 
chcrem — devoted. 

h.  The  destruction  of  the  "bloody  house"  of  Saul  is  ex- 
plained in  "11"  of  this  chapter.  (2  Sam.  xxi.  8,  9,  14) 
The  phrase  in  the  Hebrew  translated  "before  the  Lord"  (verse 
9),  means  only  that  it  was  done  with  a  belief  that  it  was  such 
a  just  retribution  that  Jehovah  sanctioned  it. 

13.  Jephthah's  DAUGHTER  DEVOTED. — Fh'st.  Remember 
that  the  law  and  the  whole  Old  Testament  condemns  human 
sacrifices;  then  apply  our  rules  at  close  of  Chapter  II.  of  this 
book.  Second.  If  Jephthah  had  done  so  horrible  a  thing,  in- 
stead of  being  in  Heb.  xi.  32,  he  would  have  been  cursed 
and  condemned  as  all  other  Israelites  were  who  so  far  de- 
parted from  the  law  of  God  as  to  be  guilty  of  this  heathen 
abomination.  See  11  Kings  xvi.  3 ;  xxi.  6 ;  2  Chron.  xxxiii. 
2,  6,  where  Ahaz  and  Manasseh  are  condemned  for  doing  what 
some  claim  Jephthah  did.*     Third.    "But  the  entreaty  of  the 

*  Of  the  assumptions  that  he  acted  rashly,  etc.,  Keil  and  Delitzsch 
say:  "But  what  we  know  of  this  brave  hero  by  no  means  warrants  any 
such  assumptions.  His  acts  do  not  show  the  slightest  trace  of  impei- 
uosity  or  rashness."     ''And,  again,  we  have  no  right  to  attribute  to 


242  OLD    TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

daughter,  that  he  would  grant  her  two  months'  time,  in  order 
that  she  might  lament  her  virginity  upon  the  mountains  with 
her  friends,  would  have  been  marvelously  out  of  keeping  with 
the  account  that  she  was  to  be  put  to  death  as  a  sacrifice.  To 
mourn  one's  virginity  does  not  mean  to  mourn  because  one 
has  to  die  a  virgin,  but  because  one  has  to  live  and  remain  a 
virgin." — Keil  and  Delitzsch — Cojn.^  in  loco.  Fourth.  If  she 
had  been  mourning  on  account  of  her  youth  and  premature 
death,  ''it  would  be  altogether  opposed  to  human  nature  that 
a  child,  who  had  so  soon  to  die,  should  make  use  of  a  tempo- 
rary respite  to  forsake  her  father  altogether."  Fifth.  "It 
would  no  doubt  be  a  reasonable  thing  that  she  should  ask 
permission  to  enjoy  life  for  two  months  longer  before  she  was 
put  to  death;  but  that  she  should  only  think  of  bewailing 
her  virginity,  when  a  sacrificial  death  was  in  prospect,  which 
would  rob  her  father  of  his  only  child,  would  be  contrary  to 
all  the  ordinary  feelings  of  the  human  heart."  Sixth.  "In- 
asmuch as  the  history  lays  special  emphasis  upon  her  bewail- 
ment  of  her  virginity,  this  must  have  stood  in  some  peculiar 
relation  to  the  vow" — so  much  sO  that  virginity,  instead  of 
death,  was  meant  by  the  vow.*  Seventh.  "And  this  is  con- 
firmed by  the  expression,  to  bewail  her  virginity  'upon  the 
mountains.'  If  life  had  been  the  question,  the  same  tears 
might  have  been  shed  at  home.     But  her  lamentations  were 

him  any  ignorance  of  the  law The  negotiations  with  the 

king  of  the  Amorites  show  the  most  accurate  acquaintance  with  the 
Pentateuch." — Cot?i.  on  Judges. 

*  Another  thing  here  as  negative  proof:  "Human  sacrifices  do  not 
even  belong  to  heathenism  generally;  but  to  the  darkest  night  of  hea- 
thenism. They  only  occur  among  those  nations  which  are  the  most 
thoroughly  depraved  in  a  moral  and  religious  sense." — Hengstenberg. 
And  Keil  and  Delitzsch  remark  that  this  remark  can  not  be  set  aside 
by  reference  to  Eusebius'  statement  from  Porphyry.  The  Bible  reader 
will  here  call  to  mind  that  only  the  basest  nations  in  Bible  times  and 
basest  Jewish  rulers  offered  human  sacrifices. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  243 

devoted  to  her  virginity,  and  such  lamentations  could  not  be 
uttered  in  town,  and  in  the  presence  of  men.  Modesty  re- 
quired the  solitude  of  the  mountains  for  these.  The  virtuous 
heart  of  the  maiden  does  not  open  itself  in  the  ears  of  all; 
but  only  in  sacred  silence  does  it  pour  out  its  lamentations  of 
love."  Eighth.  "And  so,  again,  the  still  further  clause  in 
the  fulfillment  of  the  vow,  'and  she  knew  no  man,'  is  not  in 
harmony  with  a  sacrificial  death.  This  clause  would  add 
nothing  to  the  description  in  that  case,  since  it  was  already 
known  that  she  was  a  virgin.  The  words  only  gain  their  pro- 
per sense  if  we  connect  them  with  the  previous  clause,  he 
'did  with  her  according  to  the  vow  which  he  vowed,'  and  un- 
derstand them  as  describing  what  the  daughter  did  in  fulfill- 
ment of  the  vow.  The  father  fulfilled  his  vow  upon  her  and 
she  knew  no  man ;  /.  e. ,  he  fulfilled  the  vow  through  the  fact 
that  she  knew  no  man  .  .  .  in  a  life-long  z;/>^/;^//>'."  Ninth. 
Auberlen's  remarks,  alone,  ought  to  cast  grave  doubts  upon 
the  "human  sacrifice"  interpretation.  "The  history  of  Jeph 
thah's  daughter,"  he  says,  "would  hardly  have  been  thought 
worth  preserving  in  the  Scriptures,  if  the  maiden  had  been 
really  offered  in  sacrifice;  for,  in  that  case,  the  event  would 
have  been  reduced,  at  the  best,  into  a  mere  family  history, 
without  any  theocratic  significance,  though,  in  truth,  it  would 
rather  have  been  an  anti-theocratic  abo7ni7tation,  according  to 
Deut.  xii.  31  (cf  chapter  xviii.  9;  Lev.  xviii.  21;  xx.  1-5). 
Jephthah's  act  would,  in  that  case,  have  stood  upon  the  same 
platform  as  the  incest  of  Lot  (Gen.  xix.  30),  and  would  owe 
its  adoption  into  the  canon  simply  to  genealogical  considera- 
tions, or  others  of  a  similar  kind.  But  the  very  opposite  is 
the  case  here ;  and,  if  from  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  nar- 
rative in  chapter  xi.  39,  40,  the  object  of  it  is  supposed  to  be 
simply  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  feast  that  was  held  in  honor 
of  Jephthah's  daughter,  even  this  would  tell  against  the  ordin- 


244  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

ary  view.  In  the  eye  of  the  law  the  whole  thing  would  still 
remain  an  abomination,  and  the  canonical  Scriptures  would 
not  stoop  to  relate  and  beautify  an  institution  so  directly  op- 
posed to  the  law." — Quoted  by  Keil  and  Deliizsch.  Tenth. 
"But  burnt  offerings,  that  is  to  say,  bleeding,  in  which  the 
victim  was  slaughtered  and  burnt  upon  the  altar,  could  only 
be  offered  upon  the  lawful  altar  at  the  tabernacle,  or  before  the 
ark,  through  the  medium  of  the  Levitical  priests,  unless  the 
sacrifice  itself  had  been  occasioned  by  some  extraordinary 
manifestation  of  God;  and  that  we  can  not  for  a  moment  think 
here."  See  Lev.  i.  5;  ii.  9,  16;  iii.  5,  13,  16;  iv.  4,  7,  10, 
14,  18,  19,  26,  29,  31,  for  law  of  burning  on  the  altar.  "But 
is  it  credible  that  a  priest  or  the  priesthood  should  have  con- 
sented to  offer  a  sacrifice  upon  the  altar  of  Jehovah  which 
was  denounced  in  the  law  as  the  greatest  abomination  of  the 
heathen?  This  difficulty  can  not  be  set  aside  by  assuming 
that  Jephthah  put  his  daughter  to  death,  and  burned  her  upon 
some  secret  altar,  without  the  assistance  and  mediation  of  a 
priest;  for  such  an  act  would  not  have  been  described  by  the 
prophetic  historian  as  a  fulfillment  of  the  vow  that  he  would 
offer  a  burnt-offering  to  the  Lord,  simply  because  it  would 
not  have  been  a  sacrifice  offered  to  Jehovah  at  all,  but  a  sac- 
rifice slaughtered  to  Moloch,"  So  it  would  have  been  re- 
corded if  the  priests,  as  in  the  cases  of  Ahaz  and  Manasseh, 
had  helped  him  offer  his  daughter  as  a  burnt-offering. — Keil  and 
Delttzsch's  Co?n.  on  Judges  and  Ivtdh,  pp.  392-394.^  Eleventh. 
"During  the  'two  months'  which  intervened  between  Jeph- 
thah's  return  and  the  supposed  sacrifice,  it  is  scarcely  credible 
that  the  priests  should  not  have  interposed  to  prevent  the  bar- 
barous deed,  or  that  Jephthah  himself  should  not  have  'in- 
quired of  the  Lord,'  respecting  a  release  from  his  vow." — 

*  These  statements  of  Keil  and  Delitzsch  I  have  divided  into  propo- 
sitions, and  somewhat  paraphrased. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  245 

Halley,  (See  release  from  vows  in  Lev.  xxvii.  i-8,  etc.) 
Twelfth.  One,  of  the  moral  nature  that  Jephthah  was,  cer- 
tainly would  have  been  prevented  from  the  barbarous  deed 
by  that  moral  insight  into  right  and  wrong  which  is  the  inva- 
riable power  of  such  souls  as  spoken  of  in  Heb.  xi.  32.  As 
did  David,  on  the  impulse  of  the  moment  under  passion,  a 
good  man  may  do  a  bad  thing  or  deed ;  but  not  when  in  the 
religious  state  of  mind  and  with  the  time  for  consideration,  as 
was  the  case  with  Jephthah.  Thirteenth.  In  verse  29,  it  is 
positively  affirmed  that  Jephthah  was  in  "the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord"  when  he  made  the  vow.  As  well  beHeve  God 
could  cause  sin  as  to,  therefore,  believe  Jephthah  burnt  his 
daughter.  Fourteenth.  Verse  31  of  Judges  may  be  ren- 
dered, {a)  ''Shall  surely  be  the  Lord's,  or\  will  offer  it  up 
for  a  burnt-offering."  Dr.  Davidson,  an  eminent  Hebraist, 
says:  *'It  can  not  be  denied  that  the  conjunction  h^av^  may 
be  rendered  or.''—Introd.  Old  Test.,  Vol.  /.,  p.  476.  Dr.  Rob- 
inson says:    ''Gesenius,  in  i  Kings  xviii.  27, 

himself  admits  it  is  a  disjunctive." — Ges.  Lex.  Heb.,  p.  266; 
Ges.  Thesaur.,  p.  679.  (^)  Dr.  Randolph,  J.  Kimchi  and 
Auberlen  render  :  "  Shall  surely  be  the  Lord's,  and  I  will  offer 
to  him  a  burnt-offering."  Dr.  Davidson  says:  ''We  admit 
that  the  construction  is  grammatically  possible;  for  examples 
justify  it,  as  Gesenius  shows."  "Either  of  these  translations 
removes  the  difficulty." 

The  objection  to  this  last  rendering — that  the  Hebrew  is 
the  dative  instead  of  the  accusative — is  groundless.  For  there 
are  exceptions  to  the  rules  governing  all  languages.  For  ex- 
ample, the  Greek  in  Acts  ii.  38,  where  instead  of  eKaarog 
avrcjv — each  of  them — we  have  eKaarog  vfiojv — "each,"  in 
third  person,  and  "of  you,"  in  second  person,  while  the  verb 
(SaiTTLO'qTU)  is  third  person.  Were  we  to  attempt  to  translate 
this  by  the  rules  of  grammar,  we  would  have  something  like : 


246  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

''Be  baptized  each  of  them  of  (or  which  are  of)  you."  But 
translators  so  translate  this  as  to  make  "of  you" — second  per- 
son— agree  with  ckastas — each,  which  is  in  the  third  person. 
But  in  the  case  before  us  no  such  abruptness  is  necessary  to 
render,  ''I  will  offer  to  hm  a  burnt-offering;"  for  Gesenius 
clearly  shows  (see  Heb.  Gram.,  sec.  "138,  2")  that  there  are 
not  a  few  exceptions  where  the  accusative  is  equivalent  to  the 
meaning  or  use  of  the  dative.  I  believe  this  rendering — 
''offer  to  him" — is  the  true  rendering.  Some  other  renderings 
need  correction  in  this  connection.  In  verse  39,  we  should 
render,  "She  knew  no  man  and  it  [/.  e.,  to  vow  daughters  to 
perpetual  virginity — Exod.  xxxviii.  8;  i  Sam.  ii.  22,  in  min- 
istering at  the  tabernacle]  was  a  law  in  Israel."  Verse  40 — 
"From  year  to  year  the  daughters  in  Israel  came  to  [or  praise] 
celebrate  the  daughter  of  Jephthah  the  Gileadite,"  etc.  Gesen- 
ius defines  rT^n—/^«^//— rendered  by  our  version  "lament" 

T    T 

— "to  praise,  rehearse,  celebrate."  So  do  Profs.  Harper 
{Heb.  Voc,  p.  106),  Young,  Fuerst,  and  others.  In  chapter 
xi.  5  our  version  renders  it  rehearse,  instead  of  "lament." 
The  Hebrew  verbs  for  lament  are :  H-^K)  Mn^)  15D>  ?1p — 

T    T  T  T  -     T  I      )    • 

afia,  nahah,  saphad,  qiin;  and  to  these  may  be  added  others, 
as  XXyi—i^(i^(^h.     The  Enghsh  reader  would  naturally  infer 

that  the  word  rendered  by  our  version  "lament"  is  one  of 
the  same  meaning,  if  not  the  same  word,  as  the  one  rendered 
*' bewail"  in  verse  37.  But  the  word  there  rendered  is  H^^ 
— bakah,  which  really  means  "bewail."  Jephthah's  daughter 
being  sacrificed  to  the  Lord  by  perpetual  virginity,  to  minister 
at  the  tabernacle — she  was  his  only  child  (verse  34) — cut  off 
all  hope  of  the  perpetuation  of  his  family.  Besides,  the  sac- 
rifice of  all  hope  of  ever  becoming  a  mother  was  the  greatest 
sacrifice  which  a  daughter  of  Israel  could  make.  Because  of 
this,  there  was  the  bewailing  of  her  virginity  (verse  37).  Had 
the  waiHng  been  because  of  her  death,  it  would  more  natur- 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  247 

ally  read,  ''Bewail  my  deaths  Besides,  who  ever  heard  or 
read  of  such  an  aiite-7noriem  funeral !  The  noble  act — of  self- 
sacrifice  to  the  Lord — which  verse  40  records,  was  celebrated 
by  ''the  daughters  of  Israel"  going  "yearly  to  celebrate  [or 
praise]  the  daughter  of  Jephthah."  But  how  unnatural,  how 
absurd,  to  suppose  that  they  "went  yearly"  to  praise  the 
daughter  of  Jephthah  for  helping  to  commit  the  fiendish  crime 
of  human  sacrifice!  There  is  every  philological,  historical 
and  common-sense  evidence  against  any  such  crime  as  human 
sacrifice  in  the  case  of  Jephthah' s  daughter. 

To  remove  the  supposition  of  his  offering  his  daughter  as  a 
burnt-offering,  it  is  only  necessary  to  show  that  a  different 
translation  and  interpretation  can  be  fairly  made.  Our  rules 
in  Chapter  II. ,  and  the  law  condemning  such  an  abomination, 
compel  us  to  adopt  the  position  that  Jephthah  did  not  offer  a 
human  sacrifice.  So  Bush,  Cassel,  Delitzsch,  Keil,  Grotius, 
Lange,  the  Kimchis,  Le  Clerc,  Lilienthal,  Hengstenberg, 
Saalschutz,  Schudt,  Houbigant,  Waterland,  Levi  Ben  Gersom, 
Bechai,  Drusius,  de  Dieu,  Bishop  Hall,  Dr.  Hales,  Adam 
Clarke,  Richter,  and  many  other  eminent  biblical  scholars, 
agree  that  Judges  does  not  say  he  sacrificed  his  daughter;  and 
they  agree  that  he  did  not  do  so.  See  Halley's  Alleged  Dis- 
crep.^p.  239,  and  others. 

Only  her  virginity  was  mourned.  Inasmuch  as  she  was  his 
only  child,  the  only  hope  of  his  posterity;  inasmuch  as,  in 
the  estimation  of  a  Jew,  to  have  no  posterity  and  remain  a 
virgin  was  a  great  loss,  there  was  much  wailing.  She  was 
probably  devoted  to  perpetual  service  in  the  tabernacle.  See 
Exod.  xxxviii.  8;  i  Sam.  i.  11;  ii.  22.  It  "was  a  custom  in 
Israel"  (Judges  xi.  39)  to  mourn  her  virginity.  It  is,  then, 
clear  that  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  justification  for  the  charge 
that  the  Bible  sanctions  human  sacrifice. 

14.  David,  "the  man  after  God's  own  heart."  (i  Kings 


248  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

XV.  3,  5;  xiv.  8;  xi.  33,  34;  Acts  xiii.  22;  i  Sam.  xill.  14; 
Ps.  Ixxxix.  20,  21.  ^.  The  emphatic  condemnation  of  mur- 
der, adultery,  etc.,  in  the  Scriptures,  compels  us  to  regard 
these  commendations  of  David  as  commendations  only  so  far 
as  he  did  right.  (See  rules  of  interpretation  in  Chapter  II., 
which  must  be  kept  in  mind.)  b.  Acts,  Samuel  and  Psalms 
are  "not  absolute,  but  describe  the  character  of  David  in 
comparison  with  Saul.  The  latter  was  rejected  for  his  dis- 
obedience and  impiety ;  David,  on  the  contrary, 

performed  his  commands  as  they  were  made  known  to  him." 
' — Hackett  on  Acts  xiii.  22.  Besides,  i  Sam.  xiii.  14  informs 
us  that  these  commendations  were  in  David's  early  life.  c. 
The  commendations  in  later  life  are  limited  by  other  Scrip- 
tures. (See  rules  of  interpretation.)  i  Kings  limits  it  by 
"save  only  in  the  matter  of  Uriah  the  Hittite." — i  Kings  xv. 
5.  I  Kings  xi.  33,  34  and  xiv.  8  are  expressly  made  in 
comparison  with  the  kings  mentioned  in  the  context — a  com- 
parative commendation  only.  Nothing  can  be  more  reckless 
than  the  disregard  of  the  rules  of  interpretation  by  which  these 
commendations  are  made  to  appear  as  unqualified.  Read  2 
Sam.  xxiv.  10;  xii.  1-15,  and  compare  Ps.  li.  and  xxxi.  The 
sacred  historian  presents  the  outrage  of  his  daughter  Tamar 
(2  Sam.  xiii.) ;  the  revolt  and  death  of  his  most  beloved  son 
Absalom  (i  Sam.  xv.);  the  rebellion  by  which  David  was 
sent  forth  a  barefooted  wanderer,  cursed  and  despised  (2  Sam. 
xvi.  7,  8;  xvii.);  the  ruin  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  through 
his  son  Solomon,  etc. ;  Ahithophel,  the  grandfather  of  Bath- 
sheba,  the  main  supporter  of  Absalom's  rebellion  (2  Sam.  xvi. 
20-23)  ;  the  disgrace  which  Absalom  brought  upon  his  father 
vith  his  inferior  wives  (2  Sam.  xvi.  22);  the  death  of  his  in- 
int  son  (i  Sam.  xii.  14-23);  the  murder  of  his  eldest  son 
Ammon  (i  Sam.  xiii.  27-30);  all,  and  more,  as  the  result  of 
David's  sins.     God  inspired  Nathan  (2  Sam.  xii.  9-14)  to  tell 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED.  249 

David  that,  though  personally  forgiven — saved  from  death, 
the  penalty  of  his  crime,  etc. — as  a  lesson  to  him  and  others, 
as  a  vindication  of  the  divine  law  and  a  curse  on  sin,  "there- 
fore, the  sword  shall  never  depart  from  thy  house;  because  thou 
hast  despised  me,  and  hast  taken  the  wife  of  Uriah  the  Hittite 
to  be  thy  wife.  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Behold,  I  will  raise  up 
evil  against  thee  out  of  thine  house  [/.  e.,  permit  it],  and  I 
will  take  thy  wives  before  thine  eyes  and  give  them  unto  thy 
neighbor  [/.  ^.,  permit  it],  and  he  shall  lie  with  the  wives  in 
the  sight  of  this  sun.  For  thou  didst  it  secretly :  but  I  will 
do  this  thing  [/.  e. ,  permit  it]  before  all  Israel  and  before  the 

sun Because  of  this  deed,  thou  hast  given  great 

occasion  to  the  enemies  of  the  Lord  to  blaspheme  [/.  e.,  do 
the  evils  above  mentioned] ;  the  child  also  that  is  born  unto 
thee  shall  surely  die."  In  2  Sam.  xvi.  11,  David  recognizes 
his  troubles  as  the  infliction  of  a  just  God  for  his  sin.  This 
sin  of  David — common  to  oriental  monarchs  of  that  and  of 
our  own  time,  and  not  regarded  wrong  by  them  and  their  re- 
ligions— is  visited  with  such  terrible  retributions  as  to  impress 
upon  all  the  righteousness  of  the  law  and  to  make  us  stand 
in  awe  before  the  justice  and  righteousness  of  the  Judge  of  all 
the  earth.  As  one  sin  leads  to  another,  etc.,  this  is  also  a 
scathing  rebuke  on  all  of  David's  sins.  Well  does  Stanley 
remark,  concerning  the  expression  commending  David:  ''This 
expression  has  been  perhaps  too  much  made  of." — Smith's 
Bible  Diet,  Vol.  /.,  /.  565. 

But  not  to  indicate  the  other  side  of  David's  character  would 
be  an  equal  injustice,  a.  He  was  a  man  of  a  tender,  gener- 
ous and  forgiving  disposition.  First.  Though  hunted  like  a 
fox,  because  of  only  jealousy  on  Saul's  part,  when  Saul's  life 
was  in  his  hands,  that,  too,  when  seeking  David's  life,  David 
refused  to  injure  him — "The  Lord  forbid  that  I  should  do  this 
thing  unto  my  master."     For  cutting  "off  the  skirt  of  Saul's 


250  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

robe,"  with  no  intention  to  injure  him,  "David's  heart  smote 
him."  (i  Sam.  xxiv.  5,  6.)  Saul  was  so  deeply  moved  at 
the  magnanimity  of  David,  that  ''he  lifted  up  his  voice,  and 
wept.  And  he  said  to  David,  Thou  art  more  righteous  than 
I :  for  thou  hast  rewarded  me  good,  whereas  I  have  rewarded 
thee  evil.  And  thou  hast  shewed  this  day  how  that  thou 
hast  dealt  well  with  me :  forasmuch  as  when  the  Lord  had 
delivered  me  into  thine  hand,  thou  killedst  me  not." — i  Sam. 
xxiv.  16-18.  Seco7id.  A  second  time  David  refuses  to  in- 
jure Saul,  when,  seeking  his  life,  he  fell  into  his  power. 
David  would  neither  injure  him  himself  nor  let  his  men  do 
so,  though  they  insisted  on  doing  it.  Here  Saul  was  again 
so  moved  by  the  nobleness  of  David's  heart,  that  he  said:  ''I 
have  sinned :  return,  my  son  David ;  for  I  will  no  more  do 
thee  harm,  because  my  soul  was  precious  in  thine  eyes  this 
day :  behold,  I  have  played  the  fool,  and  have  erred  exceed- 
ingly  Blessed  be  thou,  my  son  David."     See 

I  Sam.  xxvi.  Where  is  the  man  now  living  who  would  have 
spared  Saul's  life  in  this,  even,  first  instance.  Yet  David  not 
only  then  spared  his  life,  but  did  so  in  the  second !  Third. 
His  forbearance  and  tenderness  towards  Shimei.  Shimei 
cursed  him  and  deserved  death;  yet  he  so  long  saved  his 
life.  Compare  2  Sam.  xvi.  5-10  with  xix.  16-23  and  i  Kings 
ii.  8.  David's  tenderness  here  led  him  to  violate  what  seems 
to  have  been  the  law.  (Exod.  xxii.  28;  xx.  7;  2  Sam.  xix. 
21.  Fourth.  In  David's  forgiveness  to  all  engaged  in  this 
most  heinous,  provoking  rebellion.  (2  Sam.  xix.  22.)  Fifth. 
David's  care  to  preserve  Absalom — than  whom  no  traitor  ever 
more  deserved  death — and  his  grief  over  his  death.  (2  Sam. 
xviii.  5,  32,  33.)  Here  his  tenderness  again  carried  him  into 
sinful  grief.  (2  Sam.  xix.  1-6.)  Exposed  himself  to  the 
charge,  "Thou  lovest  thine  enemies  and  hatest  thy  friends" 
(2  Sam.  xix.  6) — a  charge  to  which  not  many  to-day  are  sub- 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  25 1 

ject.  These  incidents  prove  David  to  have  been  of  a  very- 
tender,  generous  and  forgiving  disposition,  b.  David  was  a 
man  of  high  conceptions  of  right  and  justice,  and  of  a  very- 
tender  conscience.  No  hardened  criminal  could  have  ever 
uttered  that  noble  confession — the  51st  Psalm,  c.  No  crim- 
inal could  have  ever  written  the  119th  Psalm,  nor  the  8th, 
15th,  19th,  23d,  24th,  26th,  33d,  39th,  etc.,  Psalms.  These 
Psalms  show  the  mind  of  a  man,  though  often  fallen  and 
bruised,  yet  as  often  rising  again,  and  striving  for  the  perfect 
mark.  David's  sin  against  Uriah,  harem,  etc.,  was  a  cus- 
tom of  oriental  monarchs  of  his  time ;  it  is  so  with  them  to- 
day. Our  public  men  of  our  own  country  are  often  loose 
men.  This  helped  lead  David  into  such  sins.  But  while  the 
Jewish  law  compelled  him  to  do  it  secretly,  then  repent,  etc. , 
other  monarchs  and  their  people  thought  nothing  of  such 
crimes,  and  gloried  in  their  open  commission.  — See  Matt.  xiv. 

3-1 1- 

As  to  Nabal's  death  (i  Sam.  xxv.  38),  the  record  is  that 
the  Lord  smote  him.  Ewald,  the  great  Rationalist  German 
critic,  admits  that  David  had  nothing  to  do  with  his  death. 

Carlyle,  a  superior  judge  of  character  and  who  is  not  hurt 
with  strict  ' 'orthodoxy" — though  not  an  infidel — say  si  ''Who 
is  called  'the  man  after  God's  own  heart'  ?  David,  the  Hebrew 
king,  had  fallen  into  sins  enough — blackest  crimes;  there  was 
no  want  of  sin.  And,  therefore,  unbelievers  sneer,  and  ask, 
*Is  this  your  man  according  to  God's  own  heart?'  The  sneer, 
I  must  say,  seems  to  me  but  a  shallow  one.  What  are  faults, 
what  are  the  outward  details  of  a  life,  if  the  inner  secret  of  it, 
the  remorse,  temptations,  the  often-baffled,  never-ending  strug- 
gle of  it,  be  forgotten David's  life  and  history,  as 

written  for  us  in  those  Psalms  of  his,  I  consider  to  be  the  truest 
emblem  ever  given  of  a  man's  moral  progress  and  warfare  here 
below.     All  earnest  souls  will  ever  discover  in  it  the  faithful 


252  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

Struggle  of  an  earnest  human  soul  towards  what  is  good  and 
best.  Struggle  often  baffled — sore  baffled — driven  as  into  en- 
tire wreck ;  yet  a  struggle  never  ended,  ever  with  tears,  re- 
pentance, unconquerable  purpose,  begun  anew." — Heroes  and 
Hero  Worships  p.  72 — quoted  in  Smithes  Bible  Diet.  ^  Vol.  /., 

A  565. 

While  under  this  head,  I  will  notice  2  Sam.  xii.  31;!  Chron. 
XX.  3.*  "If  our  version  of  the  text  from  Chronicles  is  cor- 
rect, David  merely  punished  the  Ammonites  for  the  terrible 
cruelties  which,  at  a  previous  period,  his  fellow-countrymen 
had  suffered  at  their  hands.  Compare  i  Sam.  xi.  2;  Amos  i. 
13.  Henderson,  referring  to  these  cruelties,  says:  'The  ob- 
ject of  the  Ammonites  was  to  effect  an  utter  extermination  of 
the  Israelites  inhabiting  the  mountainous  regions  of  Gilead, 
in  order  that  they  might  extend  their  territory  in  that  direc- 
tion.' According  to  a  Jewish  tradition,  David  slew  the  Moab- 
ites  (2  Sam.  viii.  2)  because  they  had  treacherously  murdered 
his  parents,  who  had  been  confided  to  their  care  {Michaclis^ 
Mos.  Laws,  Vol.  /.,  /.  334,  335).  Wahner,  however,  gives 
these  explanations,  'according  to  which  none  of  the  vanquished 
Moabites  were  put  to  death '  {Life  of  David,  Vol.  II. ,  //. 
227-238).  The  probability  is  that  our  version  of  both  texts 
of  the  first  series,  as  well  as  the  original  of  the  second  of  those 
texts,  is  incorrect.  Dr.  Davidson  says:  'According  to  the 
present  reading  of  Samuel,  the  meaning  could  not  be,  ht  put 
them  to.  Nor  could  it  be,  he  put  them  und:r;  but  only,  he 
put  them  among  or  betwee?i.^  Chandler,  Dantz,  Adam  Clarke, 
and  others,  take  the  meaning  to  be  that  David  enslaved  the 
Ammonites,  putting  them  to  servile  labor  in  the  midst  of  suit- 
able implements,  saws,  harrows,  axes  and  the  like.  The  word 
vayyasar — he  sawed — in  Chronicles,  may  be  a  copyist's  blun- 
der for  vayyasem — he  put — as  in  Samuel.     The  latter  word  is 

*  See  origin  of  Ammonites  and  Moabites  in  Gen.  xix.  37,  38. 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  253 

found  in  seven  of  the  MSS.  collated  by  Dr.  Kennicott  (none 
against  these  seven  discovered).  The  close  resemblance  of 
the  two  words,  especially  if  the  final  letter  mem  were  imper- 
fectly formed,  accounts  for  the  error  of  the  transcriber.  We, 
therefore,  submit  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  David  put  the 

Ammonites  to  the  torture If  he  killed  any,  it 

may  have  been,  as  Keil  suggests,  simply  the  *  fighting  men 
that  were  taken  prisoners.'" — Alleged  Discrep.^ pp.  264,  265. 

In  addition  to  the  above  sound  criticism,  I  submit,  ^,  that 
punishing  men  under  saws,  harrows,  axes,  and  burning  them 
in  brick  kilns,  are  methods  of  punishment  unknown  to  the 
Jewish  law  and  unknown  to  Jewish  history.  In  fact,  such  a 
variety  of  ridiculous  methods  of  punishments  is  rare,  if  not 
unknown  to  any  history.  How  could  men  be  tortured  to 
death  with  a  harrow  ?  b.  The  tender  character  of  David  for- 
bids any  such  wholesale  cruel  punishments,  unless  he  had 
the  most  heinous,  justice-deserving  criminals  to  punish;  then 
he  would  have  punished  them  by  a  different  method.  (Re- 
member rules  of  interpretation  in  Chapter  11.) 

15.  The  imprecatory  Psalms. — See  Ps.  xxxv.  6,  8;  Iv. 
15;  Ixix.  24,  27;  Ixxxiii.  17;  cix.  6-10,  12,  13,  18,  19.  a. 
That  these  Psalms  are  ''mere  spite,"  the  tender,  forgiving 
character  of  the  writer  David  forbids.  Can  one  who  showed 
such  surpassing  freedom  from  such  a  spirit,  in  his  relations  to 
Saul,  etc.,  have  ever  been  filled  with  "spite"  so  as  to  have 
written  these  Psalms  in  such  a  spirit?  b.  Jesus  receiving  these 
Psalms  as  holy  forbids  us  receiving  them  as  unholy.  Jesus 
read  them,  prayed  them,  sung  them  and  lived  them.  See 
Luke  XX.  42 ;  xxiv.  44-46.  On  Matt.  xxvi.  30,  Adam  Clarke 
says:  ''As  to  the  hymn,  we  know  from  the  universal  consent 
of  Jewish  antiquity  that  it  was  composed  of  Psalms  cxiii. , 
cxiv.,  cxv.,  cxvi.,  cxvii.  and  cxviii."  Bengel,  G.  W.  Clarke, 
Comp.  Commentary^  and  commentators  generally,  are  agreed 


254  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

that  Jesus  here  sung  Psahiis.  These  very  Psalms  are  partly 
imprecatory.  Are  we  better  and  wiser  than  Jesus,  that  we 
may  condemn  these  Psalms  while  he  so  unqualifiedly  indorsed 
them  ?  c.  There  are  no  severer  curses  in  any  of  these  Psalms 
than  are  the  words  of  Jesus.  See  Matt.  xxv.  41 ;  xxiii.  13-27; 
Mark  xii.  40;  Luke  xx.  47;  Mark  iii.  29;  John  v.  29;  Mark 
xvi.  16;  iii.  5;  ix.  43-48;  Matt.  xiii.  42;  xviii.  7-9,  etc. 
Certainly  no  severer  curses  are  in  Psalms  than  these  passages 
referred  to,  recorded  from  the  lips  ''of  the  meek  and  lowly 
Jesus."  d.  There  are  no  severer  curses  in  any  of  these  Psalms 
than  are  found  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles.  See  i  Cor. 
xvi.  22;  2  Tim.  iv.  14;  Rom.  i.  18,  32;  vi.  23;  Jude  7; 
Rev.  XV.,  xvi.,  xvii.,  xviii.  and  xix.  e.  The  just  in  the  inter- 
mediate world  cry  for  vengeance.  (Rev.  vi.  10.)  f.  Noth- 
ing is  more  evident  than  that  these  imprecatory  Psalms  are  in 
the  strictest  harmony  with  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment Scriptures,  g.  If  we  would  remember  that  ^^All  (these 
Psalms,  too)  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is 
profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproofs  for  correction,  for  instruc- 
tion in  righteousness :  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  thoroughly 
furnished  unto  good  works"  (2  Tim.  iii.  16,  17),  no  such  im- 
aginary difficulties  could  occur  to  any  of  our  minds.  These 
Psalms  are  but  the  voice  of  God  from  the  Psalmist's  lips, 
pronouncing  upon  wicked  men  the  curse  of  an  outraged  law. 
//.  The  Psalmist  uttered  these  Psalms  as  king  in  Jehovah's 
place.  /'.  Some  of  them,  at  least — likely  all — were  prophetic. 
The  109th,  against  Judas  and  Ahithophel,  were  pronunciations 
and  prophecies  of  the  terrible  justice  which  they  both  met. 
See  2  Sam.  xvi.  21;  xvii.  23;  Acts  i.  20.  /.  As  a  good  man, 
identified  with  Jehovah,  the  Psalmist  naturally  expressed  the 
curse  or  feelings  of  Jehovah  against  these  wicked  men.  Cat- 
iline had  an  insight  into  this  natural  condition  of  every  citizen, 
when  he  said:  ^^Nam  idem  velle  atqiie  idem  nolle,  eademum firiria 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  255 

amicitia  esr—{Sallusfs  Catiline,  20,  4-quoted)— an  identity 
of  wishes  and  aversions,  this  alone  is  true  friendship.  Such 
was  David's  friendship  to  God:  *'Do  I  not  hate  them,  O 
Lord,  that  hate  thee.  ...  I  count  them  mine  enemies." 
A  good  man,  identified  with  any  good  government,  can  not 
help,  and  ought  not  if  he  could,  feeling  that  all  enmity  and 
thrusts  against  that  government  are  against  himself,  k.  As 
every  good  man  says  amen  to  the  curse  of  the  law — its  pun- 
ishment— on  the  transgressor,  so  the  Psalmist  wrote  these  im- 
precatory Psalms.  Who  ever  felt  like  reproaching  an  out- 
raged community  for  wishing  the  severest  curse  or  punishment 
against  the  outlaw  ?  Who  feels  like  reproaching  the  laws  of 
any  nation  because,  Hke  the  imprecatory  Psalms,  they  so 
severely  condemn  and  punish  the  transgressor?  All  sound 
sentiment  and  literature  are  full  of  the  sentiment  of  these 
Psalms.  Who  ever  reproached  the  immortal  Milton  for  writ- 
ing: 

"Avenge,  O  Lord,  thy  slaughtered  saints,  whose  bones 
Lie  scattered  on  the  Alpine  mountains  cold ; 
Even  them  who  kept  thy  truth  so  pure  of  old, 
When  all  our  fathers  worshiped  stocks  and  stones,"  etc. 

— Poem  on  Late  Massacre  in  Piedmont. 

*^A  renowned  professor,  who,  as  Germany  thinks,  has  done 
more  for  New  England  theology  than  any  man  since  Jonathan 
Edwards,  was  once  walking  in  this  city  with  a  clergyman  of 
radical  faith,  who  objected  to  the  doctrine  that  the  Bible  is 
inspired,  and  did  so  on  the  ground  of  the  imprecatory  Psalms. 
....  The  doubter  could  not  be  satisfied.  The  two  came 
at  last  to  a  newspaper  bulletin,  on  which  the  words  were 
written — the  time  was  at  the  opening  of  our  civil  war :  *  Bal- 
timore to  be  shelled  at  twelve  o'clock.'  'I  am  glad  of  it,' 
said  the  radical  preacher.  'And  so  am  I,'  said  his  compan- 
ion;  'but  I  hardly  dare  say  so,  for  fear  you  will  say  I  am 


256  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

Uttering  an  imprecatory  Psalm.'" — Trans.  ^  by  Joseph  Cook, 
pp.  76,  77.  A  good  man  must  say  amen  to  the  justice  of 
the  law  upon  his  own  son,  if  that  son  be  a  terrible  outlaw. 
Of  course,  frail  and  as  subject  to  feeling  as  we  are,  it  would  be 
hard  to  do  so.  But  if  we  are  what  we  ought  to  be,  it  would 
be  easier  to  say  amen  than,  by  murmuring  against  the  just 
sentence  of  the  law,  to  become  partakers  of  our  son's  crimes. 
So  the  righteous  will  rejoice  in  an  eternal  hell  as  but  the  ex- 
pression and  vindication  of  the  righteous  law  against  sin.  So 
the  Psalmist  wrote  these  terrible  Psalms.  To  have  written 
their  opposite,  on  these  wicked  men,  would  have  only  proved 
him  a  child  of  hell;  for  only  such  can  say  ''peace"  to  the 
wicked.  Wherever  these  Psalms  pronounce  curses  upon  the 
children  of  these  wicked  persons,  it  is  done  by  the  divinely 
inspired  foreknowledge  that  their  children's  minds  will  partake 
of  their  own  wickedness.  /.  Wherever  there  is  any  hope, 
these  Psalms  pray  these  judgments  upon  men  for  their  own 
good:  "Fill  their  faces  with  shame;  that  they  may  seek  thy 
name,  O  Lord."     See  Ps,  Ixxxiii. 

Of  course,  the  reader  is  to  remember  that  these  Psalms  are 
poems,  and,  according  to  oriental  style,  are  strongly  figura- 
tive. Bold  metaphors  and  startling  hyperboles  are  the  char- 
acteristics of  oriental  style,  even  in  the  every-day  life  of  shep- 
herds. A  learned  writer  says:  "A  poetic  spirit  pervades  all 
their  works, "  even  to-day.  See  De  Wettes  Introd.  Old  Test. ; 
Led.  on  Heb.  Poet.,  by  Lowth;  Psalms,  by  Coiiant,  etc.,  etc. 
Though  not  ''orthodox,"  Max  Muller,  speaking  of  the  oriental 
style,  etc.,  says:  "If  we  willfully  misinterpret  the  language 
of  the  ancient  prophets ;  if  we  persist  in  understanding  their 
words  in  the  outward  and  material  aspect  only,"  "the  fault  is 
ours,  not  theirs."  "I  believe  it  can  be  proved  that  more  than 
half  of  the  difficulties  in  the  history  of  religious  thought  owe 
their  origin  to  this  constant  misinterpretation  of  ancient  Ian- 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  257 

guage  by  modern  language,  of  ancient  thought  by  modern 
thought." — Led.  on  Science  of  Religion^  p.  25. 

16.  Sacrifice  FOR — ''curse on" — child-birth.  Lev.  xii. 
6,  7.  This  can  not  possibly  imply  any  sin  in  child-birth,  a. 
God  is  represented  in  the  Old  Testament  as  ordaining  child- 
birth; the  Old  Testament  speaks  of  it  as  a  blessing.  ''Thy 
wife  shall  be  as  a  fruitful  vine  by  the  sides  of  thy  house." — 
Ps.  cxxviii.  3;  Gen.  i.  28;  xiii.  16;  xvi.  10;  Ps.  cxiii.  9; 
Deut.  vii.  12-14.  The  infidel  objection  would  make  Deut. 
vii.  14  read:  "Thou  shalt  be  cursed  (instead  of  blessed)  above 
all  people :  there  shall  not  be  male  or  female  barren  among 
you."  b.  The  Redeemer  of  the  world  is  promised  and  rep- 
resented as  being  given  through  child-birth.  See  Isa.  vii.  14. 
c.  His  mother  complied  with  the  law  in  Lev.  xii.  6,  7.  See 
Lukeii.  22.  Yet  she  is  pronounced,  "^/(?jW among  women." 
— Luke  i.  28.  With  these  facts  before  him,  no  man  can  in- 
terpret Lev.  xii.  6,  7  by  the  laws  of  interpretation  in  Chapter 
II.  of  this  book,  and  say  that  law  teaches  that  child-birth 
is  a  sin.  While  it  does  not  devolve  upon  me  to  explain  what 
this  law  does  mean,  I  do  so.  As  a  mercy,  God,  after  the 
fall,  made  child-birth  a  sorrow,  to  remind  our  race  that  sin 
has  cursed  the  most  sacred  things  of  life  and  that  we  are  born 
in  sin.  (Gen.  iii.  16.)  So  David,  not  as  a  reproach  to  his 
mother  nor  as  an  intimation  that  child-bearing  is  a  sin,  but  as 
an  expression  of  the  curse  of  sin,  and  of  our  birth  in  sin, 
said :  "I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother 
conceive  me." — Ps.  H.  5.  See  here  Eph.  ii.,  latter  clause  of 
third  verse,  and  John  iii.  3-7.  As  the  mother  in  child-birth 
was  especially  reminded  of  the  curse  of  sin,  she  was  required 
to  make  this  atonement— not  for  having  the  child,  but  for  her 
sins;  at  the  same  time,  to  thank  God  for  her  safe  delivery 
and  the  blessing  of  another  gift  from  his  hand;  for,  through 
the  atonement,  we  not  only  are  forgiven  our  sins,  but  through 


258  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

it  we  thank  and  praise  God.  Leyrer  says  (on  Lev.  xii.)  that 
this  and  all  other  rites  of  purification  were  intended  ' '  to  fos- 
ter the  constant  humiliation  of  fallen  man;  to  remind  him, 
in  all  the  leading  processes  of  natural  life — generation,  birth, 
eating,  disease,  death — how  everything,  even  his  own  bodily 
nature,  lies  under  the  curse  of  sin;  that  so  the  law  might  be- 
come a  schoolmaster  to  bring  him  unto  Christ,  and  awaken 
and  sustain  the  longing  for  a  Redeemer  from  the  curse  which 
has  fallen  upon  his  body." — Quoted  in  Alleged  Discrep.^p. 
230.  So  Clarke  and  others.  Read  Lev.  xii.,  xiii.,  xiv.,  xv., 
etc. 

The  mother  was  regarded  by  the  law  as  unclean  for  a  longer 
time,  when  she  bare  a  "maid"  child,  not  as  a  reflection  on 
women  (see  chapter  on  women,  and  the  rules  of  interpretation 
at  close  of  Chapter  II.  of  this  book),  but  as  a  reminder  of  sin; 
for  the  longer  time  for  purification  for  a  "maid"  child  re- 
called the  mother's  thoughts  to  the  first  transgression  in  Eden. 
The  atonement  or  purification  for  a  birth  of  either  a  son  or  a 
daughter,  led  the  mother  to  think  of  Gen.  iii.  16  and  the  fall; 
but,  having  her  attention  drawn  to  women  in  the  history  of 
the  fall  by  a  longer  time  required  for  her  purification  when 
she  had  a  "maid"  child,  she  was  especially  led  to  think  of 
what  a  cursed  thing  is  sin.  Of  course,  the  interest  of  the 
husband  in  the  birth  of  his  child,  and  his  love  to  his  wife, 
led  him  to  follow  with  intense  interest  its  mother  through  this 
atonement  and  purification;  and,  thus,  he  was  taught  the 
same  lesson — the  curse  of  sin.  How  sad  that  any  one  should 
pervert  this  sacrifice  into  a  thrust  at  child-bearing,  and  at 
woman;  that,  too,  in  the  face  of  Old  Testament  blessing  on 
them !  Why  does  not  some  perverter  charge  the  Bible  with 
making  it  a  sin  to  be  a  high  priest  and  enter  the  tabernacle, 
because  the  high  priest  was  required  to  make  an  "atonement" 
before  he  went  "into  the  holy  place"?    See  Lev.  xvi.  3,  6. 


old  testament  ethics  vindicated.  259 

17.    Giving  and  selling  animals  to  others  for  food 
Which  had  "died  of  themselves." 

I  reply,  first,  why,  in  the  face  of  the  love  and  the  good 
treatment  to  even  enemies,  required  by  this  same  Jewish  law 
(see  rules  of  interpretation  in  Chapter  II.  of  this  book),  should 
this  be  taken  to  mean  that  the  Jews  were  to  give  or  sell  "bad 
meat"  ?  In  the  second  place,  the  absurdity  of  interpreting  this 
to  mean  "bad  meat"  lies  upon  its  very  face.  a.  For  while 
it  is  possible,  but  not  probable,  that  persons  might  be  so  des- 
titute as  to  accept  "bad  meat,"  that  any  would  buy  it  is  too 
absurd  a  thing  to  be  entertained  for  a  moment,  b.  There 
would  be  no  need  to  forbid  the  Jews  to  eat  such  meat.  Tliird. 
The  law  concerning  this  meat  commanded  that  the  "stranger 
that  sojourneth  with  you"  (Numb.  xv.  i6;  Lev.  xix.  33,  34, 
et  seq.;  Acts  x.  35;  Lev.  xix.  18;  see  first  of  Chapter  VIII.  of 
this  book)  should  be  treated  well.  Fourth.  Concerning  the 
"stranger  that  sojourneth  with  you,"  he  was  to  be  the  subject 
of  the  excellent  charity  laws  of  the  Jews.  See  Chapter  VIII. 
of  this  book.  Fifth.  The  Hebrew  for  "dieth  of  itself "— 
H75^ — 7iebelah — is  not  a  verb  but  a  noun,  meaning  a  carcass. 
But  the  idea  it  derives  from  its  verb  seems  to  be  that  which, 
by  any  kind  of  accident,  etc.,  had  died,  immediately,  or 
some  time  after  the  accident.  In  the  following  Scriptures  it 
is  applied  to  such  as  had  been  slain:  Lev.  xi.  8,  11,  24,  27, 
28,  40;  Deut,  xxviii.  26;  Joshua  viii.  29;  i  Kings  xiii.  24; 
2  Kings  ix.  37.  It  is  rendered  "dieth  of  itself"  five  times; 
once,  "dead  carcass;"  once,  "dead  of  itself;"  and  thirty- 
three  times,  "carcasses"  or  "carcass."  Nebelah  is  not  the 
Hebrew  word  for  die  a  natural  death,  nor  is  any  of  its  forms 
the  word  for  a  corpse  from  such  a  death.  The  Hebrew  HID 
— muth — means  to  die;  HID — maveth — death,  etc.,  is  the  fam- 

ily  of  words  for  such  as  die  a  natural  death.     The  rendering 
should  be,  "any  animal  that  died  of  violence;"  /.  e.^  anything 


26o  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

that  died  of  any  hurt.  The  word  refers  to  the  same  idea  to 
which  TTVLfcroi — peniktou — in  Acts  xv.  20  refers — ' 'strangled.'' 
Both  words  signify  animals  not  bled.  Hence,  as  the  Jew 
was  forbidden  to  eat  blood,  because  k  was  offered  as  atone- 
ment, and  because  eaten  or  drank  as  heathen  worship  (Ps. 
xvi.  4;  Ezek.  xxxii.  25),  they  coald  only  sell  or  give  all 
meat,  that  was  not  well  bled,  to  those  who  were  not  Jews. 
To  be  sure,  no  one  could  eat  it  if  it  lingered  long  after  its 
death-wound.  See  Lev.  xix.  26;  vii.  26;  iii.  17;  Deut.  xii. 
16;  I  Sam.  xiv.  32;  Ezek.  xliv.  7,  15.  These  Scriptures 
fully  explain  why  the  carcass,  from  violence,  must  not  be 
food  for  the  Jew. 

18.  ''Borrowing"  of  the  Egyptians  with  no  "inten- 
tion OF  returning."  Exod.  iii.  22.  The  reply  to  this, 
''borrow"  is  undoubtedly  a  false  rendering  of  7Kt^ — shaal, 

~     T 

Gesenius  defines  it,  "To  require,  to  demand,"  etc. — Ges.  Lex. 
Heb.  The  very  men  who  here  render  it  borrow,  in  eighty- 
eight  instances  render  it  "ask";  in  one,  asking;  in  six,  "de- 
mand". The  Septuagint  renders  it  airr\aEi — aiteesei — shall  ask; 
the  YwXg^ie postulabit,  shall  demand.  In  Exod.  iii.  22;  xi.  2; 
xii.  35,  it  should  be  rendered  ask  or  demand.  The  Jews  had 
been  cruelly  enslaved;  had  received  little  or  nothing  for  their 
labor;  God  commanded  the  Jews  to  ask  these  jewels,  etc., 
and  he  moved — as  he  did  Pharaoh's  heart — the  hearts  of  the 
Egyptians  to  grant  the  request. 

I  have  now  taken  up  the  main  objections  which  are  ped- 
dled'over  the  country.  To  nearly  all,  the  "basis,"  etc.,  of 
ethics,  with  its  essentials,  as  presented  in  Chapters  III.  and 
IV.,  would  have  been  sufficient  answer.  Any  other  ethical 
"difficulties"  can  be  worked  out  by  the  rules  in  Chapter  II. 
of  this  book,  after  the  practice  in  their  application  which  the 
reader,  who  has  carefully  followed  me  in  this  investigation, 
has  received. 


OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  26 1 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

CONCLUSION. 

1.  We  have  given  a  brief  examination  of  the  basis  of  Old 
Testament  Ethics,  a.  In  this  examination  we  have  seen  that 
the  basis  of  Old  Testament  Ethics  is  morally  faultless,  spotless 
and  holy.  b.  We  have  seen  that,  outside  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  uninfluenced  by  Bible  light,  no  religion,  philosophy, 
or  ethical  writer  has  ever  approached,  in  ethics,  the  ethics  of 
the  Old  Testament  as  manifested  in  its  ethical  basis.  In  this 
respect,  Old  Testament  Ethics  is,  really,  incomparably  above 
all  non-Bible  ethics. 

2.  What  is  true  of  the  basis  of  Old  Testament  Ethics,  we 
have  seen  to  be  equally  true  of  its  structural  and  practical 
ethics. 

And  here,  as  I  have  omitted  the  matter,  and  as  it  may  as 
well  appear  here,  I  notice  the  moral  teaching  of  the  Apocry- 
pha ot  the  Old  Testament.  The  books  of  this  Apocrypha 
are  ''not  equal  in  authority  to  the  sacred  books:  they  did  not 
belong  to  the  Hebrew  canon ;  they  were  written  after  the  ex- 
tinction of  prophecy ;  they  are  not  quoted  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment (the  book  of  Enoch  referred  to  by  Jude  is  not  among 
the  Apocrypha) ;  the  most  learned  among  the  Christian  fath- 
ers— Origen,  Eusebius,  and  Jerome — excluded  them  from  the 
canon  in  its  strictest  sense,  although  they  made  frequent  use 
of  them;  they  contain  some  Jewish  superstition,  and  furnish  the 
Roman  Catholics  proof-texts  for  their  doctrines  of  purgatory, 
prayers  for  the  dead,  and  the  meritoriousness  of  good  works." 


262  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

— Bissell  on  the  Apocrypha,  p.  i — the  latest  and  most  learned 
authority  on  the  Apocrypha.  These  books  are  a  mixture  of 
history,  Bible  doctrine,  Grecian  philosophy,  Persian  religion 
and  Jewish  speculations,  etc.  Says  Bissell:  "The  Apocry- 
phal writers,  moreover,  conceived  of  sin,  as  far  as  they  con- 
sidered the  matter  at  all,  as  something  appertaining  to  the  out- 
ward conduct,  a  transgression  of  the  acknowledged  standards; 
and  seem  rarely,  if  ever,  to  have  reached  the  more  radical 
conception  of  its  being  a  want  of  inward  conformity  to  the 
divine  will.  The  underlying  motive,  the  governing  purpose 
of  the  heart,  being  for  the  most  part  left  out  of  account,  and 
the  consequences  of  one's  conduct  being  thought  of  simply 

in  relation  to  individual  happiness At  the  same 

time,  too,  as  might  have  been  expected  on  the  basis  of  this 
low  moral  plane,  ....  Razis  was  justified  in  commit- 
ting suicide,  if,  persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake,  he  were  in 
danger  of  falling  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies;  and  a  Judith 
might  invoke  the  blessings  of  God  on  her  deceptions  and 
prostitute  her  person  for  the  weal  of  her  fatherland.  Minute 
directions  are  given  how  one  is  to  behave  in  society,  how  to 
eat  to  excess  without  evil  consequences,  and  to  preserve  the 
health  through  avoidance  of  melancholy;  but  love  to  God, 
in  any  other  sense  than  reverence  or  veneration,  seems  scarcely 
to  have  been  thought  of.  He  was  the  happy  man  w^ho  lived 
to  see  the  death  of  his  enemies,  and  by  his  good  deeds,  espe- 
cially the  giving  of  alms,  had  purchased  from  heaven  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  and  won  a  permanent  place  in  the  memo- 
ries of  men." — Bissell  on  the  Apocrypha,  p.  46. 

The  immeasurable  ethical  inferiority  of  such  ethics  to  Old 
Testament  Ethics  calls  for  no  remarks  here.  That  a  people 
with  Old  Testament  training  should  fall  so  far  below  their 
own  ethical  text-book  as  to  write  such  ethics  as  the  Apocry- 
pha contains,  only  deepens  the  conviction  of  the  incompa- 


OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED.  263 

rable  superiority  of  Old  Testament  Ethics.  Yet  we  can  not 
do  justice  to  the  subject  without  here  stating  the  fact,  that  the 
ethics  of  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha  is  superior  to  all  an- 
cient or  modern  ethics  which  are  outside  of  the  Bible  or  Bible 
influences.  The  evidences  of  this  superiority  are  too  numer- 
ous to  here  mention.  No  doubt  this  superiority  is  due  to  the 
ethical  impress  which  Old  Testament  Ethics  had  made  upon 
its  writers.  And,  in  this  superiority  of  Apocryphal  ethics  to 
all  but  Bible  ethics,  is  another  evidence  of  the  superiority  of 
the  Old  Testament  to  all  heathen  and  infidel  ethics. 

3.  I  here  quote  a  few — mostly  infidel — infidel  and  half-in- 
fidel writers  to  the  beauty  of  Old  Testament  Ethics.  They 
cover  the  various  points  which  we  have  investigated.  Dr. 
Henry  W.  Bellows:  *'The  Bible  owes  its  continued  authority 
and  influence  to  the  fact  that  it  really  contains  the  word  of 
God;  that  in  its  various  records  flows  down  the  full  and  vig- 
orous river  of  God's  grace  and  truth,  in  the  history  of  a  race 
pecuharly  and  providentially  fitted  to  receive  special  commu- 
nications from  on  high.  Nothing  can  ever  change  or  destroy 
the  sublime  merits  and  religious  influence  of  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation; nothing  outlives  the  strains  of  David's  glorious 
harp;  nothing  takes  the  place  of  Isaiah's  exalted  prophecies." 

Mr.  Weiss:  "The  prophecies  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  can 
be  matched  by  no  other  literature  in  this  world."  Mr.  Weiss 
is  an  extreme  infidel.  Rousseau :  ' '  Peruse  the  books  of  phil- 
osophers, with  all  their  pomp  and  diction ;  how  meager,  how 
contemptible  are  they  when  compared  with  the  Scriptures. 
The  majesty  of  the  Scriptures  strikes  me  with  admiration." 
So  is  Rousseau  an  extreme  infidel.  Taken  from  What  Noted 
Men  Think  of  the  Bible.  Prof.  Goldwin  Smith:  "All  nations 
worshiped  God  by  sacrifice  and  through  outward  forms  till 
the  mind  of  man  had  been  raised  high  enough  to  worship  in 
spirit  and  in  truth.     The  Hebrew  lawgiver  did  not  originate 


264  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

sacrificial  rites,  but  he  elevated  and  purified  them  against  the 
most  horrible  aberrations  as  to  the  nature  of  God  and  the 
mode  of  winning  his  favor  and  averting  his  wrath,  as  all  who 
know  the  history  of  sacrifices,  Eastern  or  Western,  must  per- 
ceive. The  scape-goat  has  been  and  is  a  subject  of  much 
mockery  to  philosophers.  Moses  did  not  introduce  that  sym- 
bolic way  of  relieving  the  souls  of  a  people  from  the  burden 
of  sin  and  assuring  them  of  the  mercy  of  God;  but  he  took 
care  that  the  scape-goat  should  be  a  goat,  and  not,  as  polished 
Athens  and  civilized  Rome,  a  7nan.'"  On  ''the  penal  destruc- 
tion of  the  Canaanites,"  Prof.  Goldwin  Smith  remarks :  ''Had 
they  been  spared  and  reduced  to  slavery,  the  result,  judging 
from  analogy,  would  have  been  the  deep  corruption  of  the 
chosen  people.  With  abundance  of  slave  labor,  the  Jews 
would  not  have  taken  to  industry,  nor  have  acquired  the  vir- 
tues which  industry  alone  can  produce  and  guard.  Their 
fate  would  have  been  like  that  of  the  Turks  and  other  con- 
quering hordes  of  the  East,  which,  the  rush  of  conquest  once 
over,  have  sunk  into  mere  sloth  and  sensuality.  And  the 
morals  of  the  Canaanites  are  truly  painted  in  the  Pentateuch; 
the  possession  of  such  slaves  would  have  been  depraving  in 
the  highest  degree."— Quoted  hyProf.  George  F.  Fisher,  in 
North  American  Review,  for  February,  1882,  pp.  184,  188. 
*'Prof.  Goldwin  Smith  has  just  observations  respecting  mon- 
archy among  the  Hebrews.  Their  leaders  recognized  the 
advantages  of  a  free  commonwealth,  and  felt  it  to  be  more 
consonant  with  their  idea  and  function  as  a  people.  But 
when  the  people — being  what  they  were — preferred  monarchy, 
monarchy  was  allowed.  But  the  Hebrew  kings  were  not 
oriental  despots.  They  reigned  by  consent  of  the  people. 
There  were  laws  which  set  a  limit  to  their  prerogatives. 
There  were  fearless  prophets  to  rebuke  and  denounce  the 
proudest  of  them.     The  right  of  revolution  was  maintained. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  265 

No  such  man  as  Nebuchadnezzar  would  have  been  endured 
be  the  Hebrew  people." — Prof.  George  P.  Fisher^  in  North 
American  Review,  for  February,  1882,/.  184.  Prof.  Fisher, 
as  an  orthodox  writer,  is  here  calling  attention  to  these  state- 
ments of  Prof.  Smith.  Again,  on  page  182,  Prof.  Fisher, 
alluding  to  the  statements  of  Prof.  Goldwin  Smith,  says:  ''He 
justly  characterizes  the  Old  Testament  legislation  as  a  'code 
of  laws,'  the  beneficence  of  which  is  equally  unapproached 
by  any  code,  and,  least  of  all,  by  any  oriental  code,  not  pro- 
duced under  the  influence  of  Christianity."  Though  he  tries 
to  weaken  the  force  of  it  by  sophistry  and  base  misrepresent- 
ation of  the  Old  Testament,  Prof.  Carl  Vogt— as  quoted  in 
a  letter  to  the  Frankfurter  Zeitung — unintentionally  pays  the 
following  tribute  to  Old  Testament  Ethics:  "Wherever  I  met 
Jews  I  found  their  conduct  of  Hfe  the  same.  They  are  indus- 
trious, intelligent,  frugal,  at  times  to  excess,  charitable,  Httle 
disposed  to  violence  or  crimes,  and  not  addicted  to  drink. 
They  are  accused  of  lacking  dignity,  of  being  obsequious  and 
cunning  in  trade.  On  the  whole,  they  have  the  good  qual- 
ities and  faults  of  highly  civilized  nations.  The  picture  which 
Europe  would  present  if  peopled  exclusively  by  Israelites, 
would  be  a  strange  one.  There  would  be  no  wars,  and,  con- 
sequently, the  moral  sense  would  not  be  so  frequently  out- 
raged as  it  is  now ;  millions  of  men  would  not  be  taken  from 
the  plough,  the  workshop  and  the  counting-house,  to  bleed  in 
battle;  public  debts  and  taxes  would  decrease;  science,  letters 
and  arts — especially  music— would  be  highly  cultivated;  in- 
dustry and  commerce  would  flourish;  felonious  assaults  would 
be  of  rare  occurrence,  and  crimes  against  property  seldom 
accompanied  by  violence ;  owing  to  the  effect  of  skillful  and 
regular  labor,  combined  with  economy,  wealth  would  largely 
accumulate — wealth  that  would  be  devoted  to  noble  charities; 
there  would  be  no  conflicts  between  Church  and  State,  ex- 


266  OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

cept,  perhaps,  in  affairs  of  but  little  import;  but,  unfortunately, 
there  would  be  considerable  bribery  and  little  firmness  exer- 
cised by  public  officers.  Marriages  would  be  frequent,  con- 
tracted early  in  life,  and  generally  respected.  As  a  natural 
result,  the  evils  produced  by  immorality  would  be  almost  un- 
known. These  characteristics,  together  with  a  few  hygienic 
rules,  would  produce  a  beautiful  and  healthful  people.  Births 
would  be  numerous,  the  average  duration  of  life  would  be 
longer,  and  the  population  would  rapidly  increase." 

Dr.  Priestley,  an  eminent  scholar  and  skeptic,  concedes : 
^'They  who  suppose  that  Moses  himself  was  the  author  of 
the  institutions,  civil  or  religious,  that  bear  his  name,  and  that 
in  framing  them  he  borrowed  much  from  the  Egyptians  or 
other  nations,  must  never  have  compared  them  together;  oth- 
erwise, they  could  not  have  but  perceived  many  circumstances 
in  which  they  differ  most  essentially  from  them  all.  No  hea- 
then ever  conceived  an  idea  of  so  great  an  object  as  that  of  the 

institutions  of  Moses In  no  system  of  religion 

besides  that  of  Moses  was  purity  of  morals  any  part." — Dis- 
sertation on  the  Mosaic  Institution — quoted  in  darkens  Com- 
mentary, Vol.  /.,  p.  842. 

This  can  not  better  be  closed  than  with  the  testimony  of 
that  believer.  Sir  William  Jones.  He  was  born  in  1746.  Was 
author  of  Persian  Grammar;  Commentaries  on  Asiatic  Pvetry^ 
which  that  eminent  scholar  and  skeptic,  Eichhorn,  deemed 
worthy  of  such  merit  that  he  published  it  at  Leipsic  in  1776; 
author  of  a  translation  of  Arabic  poems ;  contributor  largely 
to  Asiatic  Researches;  the  establisher  and  first  President  of  the 
Royal  Asiatic  Society,  ''for  investigating  the  history,  antiq- 
uities, arts,  sciences  and  literature  of  Asia;"  made  Judge  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature  in  Bengal,  in  March,  1783; 
author  of  a  translation  of  the  ordinances  of  Menu  in  1794, 
and  who  died  in  April,   1794,  while  engaged  in  making  a 


OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS  VINDICATED.  267 

digest  of  Hindoo  and  Mohammedan  laws;  who  has,  even 
to-day,  no  superior  as  a  Hnguist  and  Orientalist;  of  whom 
Lord  Teignmouth,  in  his  life  of  Jones  (quoted  on  page  1 2  of 

What  Noted  Men  Think  of  the  Bible),  says:  ''A  profound 
jurist  and  linguist,  an  elegant  poet,  Sir  William's  name  is  one 
of  the  brightest  ornaments  of  English  literary  history."  This 
eminent  scholar  says:  "I  have  carefully  and  regularly  perused 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  am  of  opinion  that  the  volume,  in- 
dependently of  its  divine  origin,  contains  more  sublimity, 
purer  morality,  more  important  history,  and  finer  strains, 
both  of  poetry  and  eloquence,  than  could  be  collected  within 
the  same  compass  from  all  other  books  that  were  ever  composed 
in  any  age  or  in  any  idiom.  The  two  parts  of  which  the 
Scriptures  consist,  are  connected  by  a  chain  of  compositions 
which  bear  no  resemblance  in  form  or  style  to  any  that  can 
be  produced  from  the  stores  of  Grecian,  Indian,  Persian,  or 
even  Arabian  learning.  The  antiquity  of  these  compositions 
no  man  doubts;  and  the  unrestrained  application  of  them  to 
events  long  subsequent  to  their  publication  is  a  solid  ground 
of  belief  that  they  were  genuine  compositions,  and,  conse- 
quently, inspired.  The  connection  of  the  Mosaic  history  with 
the  gospel  by  a  chain  of  sublime  predictions,  unquestionably 
ancient  and  manifestly  fulfilled,  must  induce  us  to  think 
the  Hebrew  narrative  more  than  human  in  its  origin,  and, 
consequently,  true  in  every  substantial  part  of  it,  though  pos- 
sibly expressed  in  figurative  language ;  as  many  learned  and 
pious  men  have  believed  without  injury,  and,  perhaps,  with 
advantage  to  the  cause  of  revealed  rehgion."  (By  the  way, 
this  little  book,  whence  this  quotation  is  copied —  What  Noted 
Men  Think  of  the  Bible— hy  Prof.  Luther  T.  Townsend,  D.D., 
published  by  the  Methodist  Book. Concern  for  about  ten  cents, 
ought  to  be  widely  scattered.) 

4.  In  the  fruits  of  ethics  of  the  Old  Testament  is 


268  OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

FARTHER  SEEN  ITS  SALUTARY  NATURE.  Among  its  many  fruits, 
the  following  are  a  few  : 

First.  The  acceptance  of  monotheism  by  the  Jews. 

Second.  The  reclamation  of  the  Jews  from  idolatry. 

Third.  With  their  salvation  from  idolatry,  their  freedom 
from  the  cruel  and  obscene  rites  and  life  of  idolatry. 

Fourth.  The  deliverance  of  the  Jews  from  the  most  abject 
Egyptian  slavery. 

Fifth.  The  establishment  among  the  Jews  of  the  best  san- 
itary code  the  world  has  ever  known.  See  testimony  of  Dr. 
Richardson  in  the  chapter  of  this  book  on  the  Sabbath. 

Sixth.  Of  poor,  ignorant  Egyptian  slaves,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment made  a  nation  of  education,  refinement,  wealth  and 
civilization. 

Sevetith.  Of  tribes  the  Old  Testament  made  a  nation.  As 
Max  Muller  remarks:  "The  worship  of  Jehovah  made  the 
Jews  a  peculiar  people — the  people  separated  by  their  God, 
though  not  by  their  language,  from  the  people  of  Chemosh 
(the  Moabites)  and  from  the  worshipers  of  Baal  and  Ashta- 
roth.  It  was  their  faith  in  Jehovah  that  changed  the  wander- 
ing tribes  of  Israel  into  a  nation." — Science  of  Religion^  p.  57. 
This  statement  of  Max  Muller  is  the  more  forcible  from  his 
heterodoxy,  and  scholarship  in  the  study  of  the  different 
religions.  (The  reader  will  not  here  forget  the  licentious, 
etc.,  religion  of  Ashtaroth  and  Baal.) 

Eighth.  In  eradicating  polygamy  from  among  the  Jews, 
Old  Testament  Ethics  is  manifest.  Though  there  were  then 
exceptions,  by  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Christ  monogamy  was 
the  rule  among  the  Jews.  Under  Old  Testament  influence, 
the  Jews  are  among  the  very  strictest  adherents  to  monogamy. 

Ninth.  What  is  true  of  the  eradication  of  polygamy  from 
among  the  Jews,  is  equally  true  of  ancient  slavery. 

Tenth.  So  powerful  a  people  did  the  Jews  become,  through 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  269 

Old  Testament  influences,  that  even  when  conquered  by  brute 
force  and  dispersed  among  other  nations,  it  was  a  saying  con- 
cerning them :  ' '  The  conquered  have  given  laws  to  the  con- 
querers." 

Eleventh.  Though  so  much  given  to  formalism  as  to  crucify 
Christ  and  persecute  Christianity,  such  was  the  influence  of 
Old  Testament  Ethics  that  a  pious  virgin,  a  pious  family,  gave 
the  Redeemer  to  the  world;  from  the  Jews  came  Christianity. 
Of  no  other  religion  was  this  possible. 

While  the  expression  may  be  made  to  mean  too  much,  it  is 
true  that  of  Judaism  came  Christianity,  the  world's  hope.  The 
Jews  were  the  good  "olive  tree."*  Hence,  all  the  first  Chris- 
tians—no exceptions  worthy  of  mention — were  Jews.  Of  the 
Jews  came  the  converts  before  the  day  of  Pentecost;  on  that 
day,  and  for  several  years  after,  the  converts  were  gathered 
almost  exclusively  of  the  Jews,  when  the  Jews  were  "broken 
off  because  of  their  unbelief"  (verse  20),  to  be  finally  re- 
united (verse  26). 

With  some  statements  of  historians,  I  will  close  this  argu- 
ment. The  reader  noticed  the  concession  of  Carl  Vogt  to 
what  a  people  the  Jews  have  become.  SaysBissell:  "The 
institution  of  slavery  for  native-born  Israelites  was  abolished; 
.  .  .  .  alms-giving  rose  to  the  dignity  of  a  system;  and 
the  'virtue  that  showeth  mercy  and  lendeth,'  became  the  lead- 
ing idea  of  righteousness. " — Apocrypha,  p.  11.  Prof.  Fisher 
says:  "'Charity,  compassionate  love,'  says  Boeckh,  one  of 
the  profoundest  classical  scholars  of  the  present  age,  'was  no 
virtue  of  the  ancient  world.     Kindly  sayings  can  be  met  with 

*By  this  I  mean  the  converted  Jews,  composing  the  first  churches^ 
gathered  during  the  first  years  of  the  Church — under  the  ministry  of 
John,  Christ,  and  the  first  years  of  the  ministry  of  the  Apostles.  They 
were  '<the  root"  (Rom.  xi.  18)  ;  they  were  the  **  first  fruit"  (v.  16), 
typified  by  the  **  first  fruits"  of  Lev.  xxiii.  17;  Neh.  x.  37. 


270  OLD    TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED. 

as  blossoms  are  found  on  the  high  Alps  in  the  midst  of  the 
snow.  .  .  .  The  few  examples  of  benevolence  (in  heathen 
world)  on  a  broad  scale,  which  are  often  referred  to,  are  gen- 
erally more  apparent  than  real.'" — North  Avierica7i  Review. 
Lecky,  an  infidel,  says  of  Greece  and  Rome:  "There,  as  else- 
where, charitable  institutions  were  absolutely  unknown.  The 
infant  was  entirely  unprotected,  and  infanticide  having  been — 
at  least,  in  the  case  of  deformed  children — expressly  authorized 
by  Plato  and  Aristotle,  was  seldom  regarded  as  a  crime.  The 
practice  of  bringing  up  orphans  avowedly  for  prostitution  was 
equally  common." — Hist.  Rationalism^  Vol.  II.,  pp.  233,  235; 
also,  Hist.  Europ.  Mor.,  by  Lecky,  Vol.  II,  pp.  82-84,  87. 
Of  the  time  of  the  Christian  era:  ''The  Jews  enjoyed  a  free- 
dom from  military  service  and  other  civil  privileges  that  were 
not  granted  to  others.  Their  successful  industry  and  commer- 
cial prosperity  were  proverbial,  and  must  have  made  a  pro- 
found impression  upon  their  heathen  neighbors." — Bissell on 
the  Apocrypha,  p.  35.  The  Jews  had  been  so  much  merged 
by  the  Old  Testament  into  the  love  of  mankind,  that,  for 
their  salvation,  they  had  been  the  cause  of  the  translation  of 
the  Old  Testament  into  Greek.  And  Philo  expresses  satis- 
faction that  thus  "the  means  of  salvation"  had  become  ac- 
cessible "to  the  greater  part,  if  not,  indeed,  to  the  whole  of 
mankind." — Idem,  p.  35.  Nowhere  in  Jewish  history  did  the 
Grecian,  Roman  or  Egyptian,  or,  to  no  small  extent,  the 
modern  spirit  of  conquering  and  ruling  other  nations  appear. 
Their  ethics,  their  history  have  ever  been  the  v^ery  reverse  of 
this  national  robbery.  That  they  had  to  subdue  the  Canaan- 
ites  is  no  invahdation  of  this.  Under  the  "destruction  of 
the  Canaanites,"  we  have  seen  that  this  was  not  the  rule  or 
characteristic  of  Jewish  life;  but  the  exception,  for  a  judicial, 
wise  purpose,  and  by  divine  command. 

History  incontrovertibly  proves  that  the  ethics  of  the  Old 


OLD  TESTAMENT    ETHICS   VINDICATED.  27 1 

Testament,  in  its  influences  upon  the  Jews,  proves  itself  good 
by  its  fruits. 

Turning  to  its  influences  upon  Christians,  this  is  no  less 
true.  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  preached  from  the  Old 
Testament.  Thus  the  Old  Testament  entered  largely  into 
the  ethical  food  of  the  first  Christians.  So  Paul  says  of  the 
Old  Testament :  ''From  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation. 
All  Scripture — /.  ^.,  the  whole  Old  Testament — is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God ;  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof, 
for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness :  that  the  man 
of  God — /.  ^.,  the  true  ethical  man — may  be  thoroughly  fur- 
nished unto  all  good  works" — /.  e.,  to  the  true  ethical  life. 
2  Tim.  iii.  14-17;  Luke  xxiv.  27,  32,  45;  John  v.  39;  Acts 
xvii.  2,  11;  xviii.  24,  28;  2  Pet.  i.  20;  i  Cor.  ix. ;  the  whole 
of  Hebrews.  Let  the  reader  remember  that  all  the  Scriptures 
to  which  these  references  refer  are  the  Old  Testament.  Many 
good-meaning  people  have  scarcely  the  faintest  idea  of  the 
extent  to  which  the  Old  Testament  contributed  to  the  ethics 
of  early  Christian  lives.  It  is  certain  that  to  the  ethics  of 
early  Christian  lives  the  Old  Testament  essentially  contributed. 
This  is  no  less  true  of  the  Church  of  all  ages.  When  the 
Son  of  man  shall  come,  it  will  be  equally  true.  Hand  in 
hand,  one  revealed  book  of  ethics,  are  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testaments.  The  reader  who  is  disposed  to  thoroughly  sound 
how  deeply  the  early  Christians  drank  of  Old  Testament  eth- 
ics— in  addition  to  the  Scriptures  above  referred  to — may  do 
so  by  the  use  of  his  reference  Bible,  in  which  he  will  find 
that  the  doctrinal  and  practical  exhortations  of  the  New  Test- 
ament are  nearly  all  based  on  some  Old  Testament  Scripture. 

The  fruits  of  the  Old  Testament  for  all  ages  are,  light  for 
heathen  and  infidel  darkness;  moral  purity  for  heathen  and 
infidel  pollution ;  the  freedom  of  righteousness  for  the  bond- 


272  OLD   TESTAMENT    ETHICS    VINDICATED. 

age  of  heathen  and  infidel  iniquity;  civilization  for  heathen 
and  infidel  barbarism;  for  heathen  and  infidel  despair  and 
woe,  joy  and  hope.  For  the  wild  heathen  and  infidel  ethical 
desert,  the  Old  Testament  gives  us  the  ethical  land,  flowing 
with  milk  and  honey.  From  the  throne  of  God  and  the  Lamb, 
upon  this  barren  heathen  and  infidel  ethical  desert,  the  Old 
Testament  opens  the  "pure  river  of  water  of  life,  clear  as  crys- 
tal." With  the  Sun  of  righteousness  its  banks  are  all  sunny, 
growing  the  delicious  ethical  fruits  for  "the  healing  of  the 
nations." 

But,  turning  to  other  "sacred  books,"  their  influence  has, 
in  general,  been  bad.  Whatever — if  any — good  influence 
they  may  have  had  has  been  but  little,  and  that  little  due  to 
a  dim  recognition  of  some  parts  of  the  ethics  which  we  find 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Concerning  the  Vedas.  which  infidels 
delight  to  laud,  the  highest  American  Sanscrit  scholar.  Prof. 
Whitney — with  all  Orientalists — says:  "They  have  exerted 
comparatively  very  little  restraining  or  guiding  influence  upon 
the  moral  or  spiritual  development  of  India." — Oriait.  Ling. 
Studies,  Vol.  L,  p.  62.  And  Prof.  Whitney  says:  "The  Koran 
had  not  borrowed  enough  from  the  Bible  to  make  it  long  a 
safe  guide  to  the  human  mind,  and  the  furious  zeal  which  it 
inspired  was  much  more  destructive  than  constructive." — 
Idetn,  Vol.  IT.,  p.  10.  The  morality  of  India  and  China  are 
too  well  known  to  call  for  much  notice  here.  Barbarians  in 
morals,  barbarians  in  civilization.  "When  the  Duke  of  Wel- 
lington first  went  to  India,  he  made  the  remark  that  the  Hin- 
doos labored  under  two  great  defects  in  their  moral  character 
— that  they  did  not  care  for  life,  and  that  they  did  not  care 
for  truth. " — Ruling  Ideas  in  Eaidy  Ages,  by  Mozley — taken  from 
Welli?igton' s  Supplementary  Despatches,  Vol.  I,  p.  16.  As  to 
the  Chinese,  an  observer  of  singular  accuracy  says:  "With  a 
general  regard  to  outward  decency,  they  are  vile  and  polluted 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ETHICS   VINDICATED.  273 

in  a  shocking  degree They  feeL  no  shame  in 

being  detected  in  a  lie,  though  they  have  not  gone  quite  so 

far  as  not  to  know  when  they  do  lie There  is 

nothing  which  tries  one  so  much  who  lives  among  them  as 

their  disregard  for  truth Their  proneness  in  this 

regard  is  one  of  the  greatest  obstacles  to  their  permanent  im- 
provement as  a  people,  while  it  constantly  disheartens  those 
who  are  making  efforts  to  teach  them." — Dr.  S.  Wells  William^ 
Middle  King.y  Vol.  II.  ^  p.  96,  in  Chr.  Miss.^  by  Prof.  Seelye. 
See  also  Mencius  IV. ^  i,  12;  China ^  by  Prof.  Kidd,  p.  205; 
Travels  in  the  Chinese  Empire^  Vol.  II,  p.  326,  by  the  Abbe  Hue; 
Confucius,  by  legge,  p.  114;  T^ie  Chinese,  by  Sir  John  Davis; 
The  Foreign  Missionary,  by  Knowlton — in  fact,  any  reliable 
authority  on  the  Chinese.  Look  where  you  will,  you  can  see 
no  heathen  or  infidel  ethical  tree,  the  bows  of  which  are  loaded 
down  with  delicious  ethical  fruit,  as  we  everywhere  see  the 
Old  Testament  tree  loaded  down.  We  shall  look  to  see  only 
a  few  scattering  ethical  fruits  on  the  heathen  tree,  and  only 
poison  upon  the  infidel.  *'  Ye  shall  know  them  by  their  fruits.''^ 
x\s  Prof.  Mozley  remarks  of  the  superiority  of  the  Old  Test- 
ament fruits:  "Unexampled  as  it  was  in  the  world,  and  with- 
out a  parallel  in  any  other  nation." — Ruling  Ideas  in  Early 
Ages,  p.  221. 

5.  This  book  can  not  well  be  concluded  without  call- 
ing ATTENTION  TO  OlD  TESTAMENT  EtHICS  AS  A  MIRACLE  AND 
A  CONCLUSIVE  PROOF  OF  ITS  SUPERNATURAL  ORIGIN. 

With  the  fact  before  us,  that  in  the  moral  as  much  as  in  the 
material  world  every  effect  must  have  an  adequate  cause, 
how  are  we  to  account  for  the  incomparable  superiority  of  Old 
Testament  Ethics?  If  they  are  the  product  of  the  uninspired 
human  mind,  as  it  will  not  be  denied  that  the  mind  of  other 
nations  \^2iS  naturally  equal  to  the  Jewish  mind,  why  did  not 
some  other  nation  produce  something,  at  least,  somewhat  near 


274  OLD  TESTAMENT   ETHICS  VINDICATED. 

the  incomparable  ethics  of  the  Old  Testament?  If  Old  Test- 
ament morals  are  not  a  supernatural  revelation,  why  did  the 
Apocrypha,  from  the  Jeivish  mind,  fall  so  far  below  the  canon- 
ical books— below  the  Old  Testament?  If  Old  Testament 
Ethics  are  not  of  supernatural  origin,  why  do  infidel  ethics 
of  all  ages  appear  so  infinitely  below  Old  Testament  Ethics  ? 
See  especially  Chapter  III.  of  this  book.  Outside  of  the 
Bible,  there  is  no  more  recognition  of  and  agreement  upon 
fundamental  laws  of  morality  than  there  were  thousands  of 
years  ago.  And  Lecky  and  other  infidels  concede  that  rea- 
son never  can  settle  upon  a  universal,  unchangeable  ethical 
code  or  standard.  See  Chapter  IV.  of  this  book.  Without 
reference  to  the  supernatural  origin,  the  incomparable  superior- 
ity of  Old  Testament  morals  is  as  great  an  enigma  as  a  world 
without  a  Creator ;  a  design  without  a  designer ;  resurrection 
from  the  dead  without  him  who  is  ' '  the  resurrection  and  the 
life."  In  fact.  Old  Testament  is  a  resurrection  of  ethics  from 
the  grave  in  which  sin  had  buried  it.  Mozley  well  remarks  of 
the  Old  Testament:  "Unexampled  as  it  was  in  the  world, 
and  without  a  parallel  in  any  other  nation,  shows  that  there 
was  some  peculiar  power  at  work  in  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
and  that  the  people  had  been  under  a  special,  educating  Prov- 
idence."— jRuli?ig  Ideas  in  Early  Ages,  p.  221.  As  an  infidel, 
Dryden  says  of  the  Bible : 

"Whence  but  from  heaven,  could  men  unskilled  in  arts, 
In  several  ages  born,  in  several  parts, 
Weave  such  agreeing  truths  ?  or  how,  or  why, 
Should  all  conspire  to  cheat  us  with  a  lie  ? 
Unasked  their  pains,  ungrateful  their  advice, 
Starving  their  gain  and  martyrdom  their  price." 


OLD  TESTAMENT  ETHICS   VINDICATED.'  ^275' 

Another  poet  writes : 

*«'Tis  Revelation  satisfies  all  doubts, 
Explains  all  mysteries  except  her  own, 
And  so  illumes  the  path  of  life, 
That  fools  discover  it  and  stray  no  more.".> 

"What  glory  gilds  the  sacred  page! 
Majestic,  like  the  sun, 
It  gives  a  light  to  every  age  ; 
It  gives,  but  borrows  none." 

"Most  wondrous  book  !  bright  candle  of  the  Lord! 
Star  of  eternity  !  the  only  star 
By  which  the  bark  of  man  could  navigate 
The  sea  of  life,  and  gain  the  coast  of  bliss  securely." 

These  lines  cover  the  whole  Bible.  The  morals  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  as  great  a  miracle  as  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.  With  my  eye  upon  the  bar  of  God,  from  my  very 
heart  I  declare,  '  'I  know  the  Old  Testament  of  God  by  its  inco?n- 
parable  ethics.''^ 


THE  END. 


Agents  Wanted  for  the  Foregoing  Book  I 

oooi>   fay: 

ADDRESS  THE  AUTHOR  FOR  TERMS. 


Stter\tion,  SU 


The  author  of  the  foregoing  book  has,  during  the  past  several  years, 
given  especial  attention  to  the  origin,  the  nature  of  the  Devil;  where 
he  is,  and  the  nature  of  his  works  and  kingdom.  He  intends,  as  soon 
as  he  can  get  a  sufficient  number  of  pledges  to  buy  the  book,  to  pub- 
lish a  small  book  upon  the  subject.  It  will  sell  at  about  25  cents.  If 
you  wish  a  copy  of  this  book,  and  desire  to  see  it  published,  please,  at 
once,  send  your  pledge  to  the  author, 

W,  A,  JARJREL,  Crveenville,  Texas, 

Also,  if  you  desire  a  book  upon  the  "Fruits  of  Christianity  and  In- 
fidelity Compared,"  send  your  pledge  to  take  a  copy  of  the  author's 
work  when  out.  The  MS.  is  full  of  rare  historical  information,  and 
should  be  in  every  household.     It  will  sell  at  $1.50  per  volume. 

ESPECIAL  ATTENTION  OF  BAPTISTS? 

There  are  several  books  which  prove  there  has  been  a  succession  of 
Baptists  from  apostolic  times  to  the  present.  But,  since  they  were 
written,  a  few  new  objections  to  the  succession  have  been  presented, 
and  old  ones  have  been  shifted.  Besides,  some  new  collections  of  his- 
torians and  historical  discoveries  have  been  since  made,  which  are  very 
valuable  to  the  succession.  To  embody  these  in  a  convenient,  convinc- 
ing form,  answer  the  latest  objections,  and  present  a  better  array  of 
Biblical  testimony,  a  new  book  is  needed.  This  should  be  a  little  book, 
which  can  be  •sold  for  50  or  75  cents.  The  author  of  the  foregoing 
book,  having  given  especial  attention  to  the  subject  for  more  than 
twelve  years,  has  collected  much  valuable  matter  for  such  a  book,  and 
will  publish  it  as  soon  as  he  receives  a  sufficient  number  of  pledges  to 
buy  a  copy,  that  he  feels  will  secure  him  against  financial  loss.  Send 
your  pledge,  name,  and  address  for  it.  For  each  of  the  above  books 
he  now  solicits  only  pledges — the  money  to  be  sent  as  soon  as  they  are 
in  print.     Remember  to  address, 

TV.  A,  JAIiBEL,  Greenville,  Texan. 


DATE  DUE 

DEMCO  38-297 

Princeton    Thpologir  31    Sern,n,iry-Spf  p 


1    1012  01001    0215 


